HARSAHAIMAL SHIAMLAL JEWELLERS PVIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), BAREILLY

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Harsahaimal Shiamlal Jewellers Shri Vimalendu Verma, Private Limited, 148, Civil Lines, Vs. Pcit (Central), Lucknow, U.P. Bareilly, U.P.-243001 Pan:Aacch3785L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Act, Passed By The Ld. Pcit, Central ,Lucknow On 17.02.2022, Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer, Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act On 29.07.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred, Are As Under:-

demonetization period”. The ld. AO records that the assessee furnished computation of income, balance-sheet, income and expenditure account, bank statements, ledger accounts, details of investments, TDS

BINDU KUMAR,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-1(1), LUCKNOW-NEW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

demonetization is out of the recent cash withdrawal only. One of such withdrawal on of 08.11.2016 only. The amount Rs. 3,35,18,807/- mentioned as cash deposits are not cash deposit but are the total of all credit entries in bank account and that also of the entire FY 2016-17. The bank statement is attached for the reference

UP GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.743 & 746/Lkw/2024 & Ita No. 30/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Vs. Assessing Officer, Nfac Welfare, Lucknow Pan:Aaatu0957A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 23.10.2024, 28.10.2024 & 2.01.2024 In The Appeals Preferred Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3), The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aac(1) & The Penalty Order Under Section 270A. The Grounds Of Appeal In These Three Appeals Are As Under:-

demonetization period was violative of the provisions of Notification No. S.O. 3408(E) as family bazars were separated entities not coming under the umbrella of the Corporation and therefore, the assessee was asked to explain as to why the above receipt of cash should not be added as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and to justify

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

demonetization period.\nii) AO did not enquire about the details of license issued to him for the\ntrading of liquor.\niii) AO did not examine about genuineness and creditworthiness of the\npersons who had id given given unsecured unsecured loans of Rs.2.99\ncrores to the assessee. Further, no enquiry were made by the AO\nregarding the genuineness and correctness

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. MAA RAKTDANTIKA CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

demonetization and sale proceeds were already being deposited in bank on a regular basis. The sales have been made from the period 07/09/2016 to 06/11/2016. Month Cash Sales Deposited in Bank September, 2016 Rs.7,07,20,900 October, 2016 Rs.3,37,34,209 November, 2016 Rs.13,57,68,200 Moreover, there can be no comparison of cash sales with that

M/S. MAA RAKLTDANTIKA CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT/ACIT, RANGE-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

demonetization and sale proceeds were already being deposited in bank on a regular basis. The sales have been made from the period 07/09/2016 to 06/11/2016. Month Cash Sales Deposited in Bank September, 2016 Rs.7,07,20,900 October, 2016 Rs.3,37,34,209 November, 2016 Rs.13,57,68,200 Moreover, there can be no comparison of cash sales with that

MANOJ DWIVEDI,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-3(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Vice President), SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)

demonetization. In response to the notices issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short), there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) proceeded ex parte to the assessee and assessed income at Rs.71,92,000/- making two additions, i.e. the amount deposited in the bank account