MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

68 of IT Act. On these confirmations filed appellant provided the current and latest address of the lender to the AO whereas AO got the verification done at old addresses in Kolkata by issuing a commission u/s 131(l)(d) to the Kolkata Investigation Wing on 27.02.2018 to submit a report on following points: 1. Identity, genuineness of the transactions

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

68 of IT Act. On these confirmations filed appellant provided the current and latest address of the lender to the AO whereas AO got the verification done at old addresses in Kolkata by issuing a commission u/s 131(l)(d) to the Kolkata Investigation Wing on 27.02.2018 to submit a report on following points: 1. Identity, genuineness of the transactions

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nRevision orders prejudicial to interest of revenue -Assessment year 2000-\n01 Whether assessment order which has been subject-matter of\nproceeding under section 263 may be a cryptic one but that itself does not\nrender assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to interest of\nrevenue Held, yes Assessee received gifts from

HIND CHARITABLE TRUST,LUCKNOW vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), LUCKNOW

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: Na Hind Charitable Trust Vs. Pcit(Central) Lucknow Block B, Church Road, Indira Uttar Pradesh-226010. Nagar, Lucknow-226016. Tan/Pan:Aaath5498M (Appellant) (Respondent)

108 taxman.com 93 (Rajasthan) has taken a similar view and has held that the provisions of section 12AA (3) empower the Commissioner to initiate steps for cancellation of the registration of a trust, but the Legislature had no intention of giving the said provision a retrospective effect and for in such a situation, the same would have been clearly

ADHYATM JAIN PROP. M/S JAMBU KUMAR ADHYATAM JAIN SARAF,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68 of the I.T. Act on substantive basis; while protective additions were made in the hands of the respective lenders. The assessee filed appeal against the aforesaid assessment order in the office of the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT” for short). (C) The aforesaid additions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

108 (Bom)], the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held: "The Commissioner cannot initiate revision merely because he is of the opinion that further enquiry should have been conducted. If the AO has made enquiries and taken a view, the Commissioner cannot substitute his own view." 7. Ground No. 7- That the Ld. PCIT was wrong in invoking Explanation

GURU KRIPA ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PR. CIT, , BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

68 of the Act, we\nhold, could not have been inferred from\nthe facts on record, and there is no error\nas such in the order of the AO in this\nregard. The order passed by the ld. Pr.\nCIT under section 263 of the Act holding\nthe assessment order erroneous so as to\ncause prejudice to the Revenue

OCEAN DREAM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by treating the same as unexplained cash credit. 2.1. Because the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in refusing to admit additional evidence submitted by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. 2.2 Because, without prejudice, in the interests of justice, the learned CIT(A) ought to have admitted additional evidence

U.P SAMAJ KALYAN NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS U.P STATE CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.),LUCKNOW vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, LUCKNOW

108 (Bom)], the Hon'ble Bombay\nHigh Court held:\n\"The Commissioner cannot initiate revision merely because he is of the opinion\nthat further enquiry should have been conducted. If the AO has made enquiries\nand taken a view, the Commissioner cannot substitute his own view.\"\n7. Ground No. 7-\nThat the Ld. PCIT was wrong in invoking Explanation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. M/S. HABIB TANNERY PRIVATE LIMITED, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S Habib Tannery Pvt. Ltd. Tax-6 15-B, 150 Ft. Road Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aach4129E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri H. S. Usmani, Cit (Dr) O R D E R

section 133(6) of the Act and wherein some of the notices were served and some could not be served and in some cases, part confirmations were received wherein there were some differences. It was the submission of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) that many of the balances outstanding included opening balances being brought forward from earlier

HORIZON DWELLINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriahorizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd V. Pcit, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (Up)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aacch6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Your Honour will appreciate that the assessing officer had duly issued detailed notice to the assessee calling for details, compliance of which was made to the assessing officer. The assessing officer had duly applied his mind to the details furnished/produced before him which after thorough application of mind were accepted by the Assessing

ARUN KUMAR MAURYA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

108 Taxmann.com 183 (SC), it has, inter alia, been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a complete absence of notice under section 143(2) of the Act does not get cured even by section 292BB of the Act; that for section 292BB of the Act to apply, a notice under section 143(2) must

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-IV, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. WAVE ENTERPRISES, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Department as well as the Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit V. M/S Wave Enterprises Circle-1 A-104, Indira Nagar Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaafw8536D (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.04/Lkw/2020 (In Ita No.629/Lkw/2019) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Wave Enterprises V. Acit A-104, Indira Nagar Circle-1 Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaafw8536D (Cross-Objector) (Respondent) Department By: Smt. Sheela Chopra, Cit (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 16 06 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 06 2021 O R D E R

108 Taxmann.com 183 (SC), it has, inter alia, been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a complete absence of notice under section 143(2) of the Act does not get cured even by section 292BB of the Act; that for section 292BB of the Act to apply, a notice under section 143(2) must

SHASHI AGARWAL,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-1,, LUCKNOW

In the result, these two appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 of the IT Act; Rs.5,57,385/- towards unexplained investment u/s 69C of the Act and Rs.33,00,000/- towards unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. In assessment year 2016-17, assessment order dated 31/12/2018 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1052325703(1) was passed u/s 153A read with section 144 of the Act wherein the assessee’s total

SHASHI AGARWAL,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result, these two appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 of the IT Act; Rs.5,57,385/- towards unexplained investment u/s 69C of the Act and Rs.33,00,000/- towards unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. In assessment year 2016-17, assessment order dated 31/12/2018 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1052325703(1) was passed u/s 153A read with section 144 of the Act wherein the assessee’s total

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 149 of the Act. The assessment based on illegal proceedings initiated u/s 148 is liable to be quashed. 4. Because the assessment order passed by AO, after prior approval of Range Head dated 21.03.2024 (AY 2019-20 – 22.03.2024) is not accordance with law and peculiar facts of the case and ratio laid down by Hon’ble Courts. LdCIT

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 149 of the Act. The assessment based on illegal proceedings initiated u/s 148 is liable to be quashed. 4. Because the assessment order passed by AO, after prior approval of Range Head dated 21.03.2024 (AY 2019-20 – 22.03.2024) is not accordance with law and peculiar facts of the case and ratio laid down by Hon’ble Courts. LdCIT

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 149 of the Act. The assessment based on illegal proceedings initiated u/s 148 is liable to be quashed. 4. Because the assessment order passed by AO, after prior approval of Range Head dated 21.03.2024 (AY 2019-20 – 22.03.2024) is not accordance with law and peculiar facts of the case and ratio laid down by Hon’ble Courts. LdCIT