MADKINI HYDRO POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 4(3), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2018-19 Madkini Hydro Power Private V. The Income Tax Officer 4(3) Limited Lucknow Flat No.4, Ii Floor 3, Scindia House Delhi 110 001 Tan/Pan:Aaecm1420B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalendera Kishore Singh, Adv. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

68 of the Act. The AO passed the order under section 144 read with sections 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act, assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.12,33,19,856/-. 2.1 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under sections 270A, 272A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 147 of the Act. The assessee is supported by authority of various case laws on the issue. Some of the said case laws are as under: New Delhi Television Ltd. V. DCIT 314CTR(SC)17 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “We accordingly allow the appeal by holding that the notice issued to the assessee shows sufficient reasons

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 147 of the Act. The assessee is supported by authority of various case laws on the issue. Some of the said case laws are as under: New Delhi Television Ltd. V. DCIT 314CTR(SC)17 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held: “We accordingly allow the appeal by holding that the notice issued to the assessee shows sufficient reasons

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. J/DCIT-CC,, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

4. BECAUSE the additions in the assessment order were made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of statement of third party, without affording opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the person giving the statement of culpable nature, the Id."CIT(A)" should have deleted the additions in view of judgement and order passed by the Apex Court

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

4. BECAUSE the additions in the assessment order were made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of statement of third party, without affording opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the person giving the statement of culpable nature, the Id."CIT(A)" should have deleted the additions in view of judgement and order passed by the Apex Court

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

4. BECAUSE the additions in the assessment order were made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of statement of third party, without affording opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the person giving the statement of culpable nature, the Id."CIT(A)" should have deleted the additions in view of judgement and order passed by the Apex Court

U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-VI(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2011-12

Section 253 of the Act, authorizes the respondent to file cross-objection against any part of the impugned order by which it is aggrieved. The procedure contemplated in the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and followed by the Registry is that on receipt of an appeal from the appellant it issues notice to the respondent. Though

DY. C.I.T., RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2011-12

Section 253 of the Act, authorizes the respondent to file cross-objection against any part of the impugned order by which it is aggrieved. The procedure contemplated in the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and followed by the Registry is that on receipt of an appeal from the appellant it issues notice to the respondent. Though

DY. C.I.T., RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2011-12

Section 253 of the Act, authorizes the respondent to file cross-objection against any part of the impugned order by which it is aggrieved. The procedure contemplated in the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and followed by the Registry is that on receipt of an appeal from the appellant it issues notice to the respondent. Though

DY. C.I.T., RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year:2011-12

Section 253 of the Act, authorizes the respondent to file cross-objection against any part of the impugned order by which it is aggrieved. The procedure contemplated in the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and followed by the Registry is that on receipt of an appeal from the appellant it issues notice to the respondent. Though

RAKESH KUMAR JAISWAL,BARABANKI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -5, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act. 3. Because without considering the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law by sustaining the addition on account of rejection of books of accounts of the assessee. 4. Because without considering the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SHASHI INFRA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ITO, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Shashi Infra V. The Constructions Pvt Ltd Addl/Joint/Deputy/Asstt/Income 328B, 5Th Lane Rajendra Tax Officer, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226004. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Tan/Pan:Aaucs5802M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

253(3) of IT Act. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned. Being satisfied with the reasons stated in application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal; we condone the delay in filing

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

4-6-1991\nCirculars and Notifications\nNotification No. SO. 69€, dated 25-1-1996.\nBrij Bhushan Agarwal v. CIT (Agra) 2 SOT 811 (2005)\nOf Section 263, read with section 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

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 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the Cross Objection; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the Cross Objection for hearing. The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application

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 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the Cross Objection; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the Cross Objection for hearing. The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application

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 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the Cross Objection; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the Cross Objection for hearing. The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application

M/S STANDARD FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT LTD,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 of the IT Act. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.2,22,289/- on account of interest on unsecured loan. 6. That the assessment completed by learned Assessing Officer is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful as no addition can be made merely on doubt or presumption without bringing any positive evidences. 7. That

SACHIN VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 of the IT Act. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.2,22,289/- on account of interest on unsecured loan. 6. That the assessment completed by learned Assessing Officer is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful as no addition can be made merely on doubt or presumption without bringing any positive evidences. 7. That