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

seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act was carried out on 05.02.2022 on the business and residential premises of M/s Alok Construction being proprietary concern of Appellant. The assessee is Government Contractor and during the relevant period, the assessee engaged in proprietorship business of construction of road etc. in semi urban area from contract work provided

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 The Asstt. Commissioner V. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd Of Income Tax B-9, Vibhuti Khand Central Circle Ii Gomti Nagar Lucnow Lucknow Pan:Aadca5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.19/Lkw/2017 [In Ita No.66/Lkw/2017] Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-9, Vibhuti Khand Income Tax Gomti Nagar Central Circle Ii Lucknow Lucnow Pan:Aadca5639H (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

search and seizure action certain documents were found and seized as per Annexure A-01 outlining details of persons to whom payments were made. The AO made addition of Rs.1,21,707/- which was credit balance as per ledger account of M/s Mallard Holidays. During appellate proceedings the appellant produced ledger account of seized party alongwith bank statements to prove

EVROY INFRAVENTURES PVT. LTD. ,KANPUR vs. ACIT-CC-2, KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2019-20 Evroy Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. V. Acit C-48, Kalyanpur Central Circle 2 Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aadce4237F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Akshay Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2024, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Kanpur – 4 (Ld. Cit(A)) For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) Was Carried Out On 17.01.2019 In Dr. M.C. Sharma, S.P.M. Hospital & Trauma Centre Group Of Cases & Also In The Case Of The Assessee’S Firm. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Infrastructure Development & Other Related Work. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 27.05.2020, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.71,940/-. During The Course Of Search & Seizure Operation

seizure operation, ITA No.260/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 10 no books of account were found. The search party recorded the statements of Shri Vineet Sharma and Shri Sudhir Sharma, Directors of the assessee-company and they were asked to produce the books of account. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee had shown a turnover

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

seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act was \ncarried out on 05.02.2022 on the business and residential premises of M/s \nAlok Construction being proprietary concern of Appellant. The assessee is \nGovernment Contractor and during the relevant period, the assessee \nengaged in proprietorship business of construction of road etc. in semi \nurban area from contract work provided

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

search and seizure action.\nNo incriminating documents were seized or found during the course of\nsearch. The assessee filed a block return showing nil income. The regular\nreturns were filed up to the assessment year 19998-99 at Mumbai. After\nverification, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that undisclosed\nincome of the assessee was nil. For the purpose

M/S MODEL EXIM,KANPUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriam/S. Model Exim Pcit (Central) V. 624-C, Defence Colony, 7/81-B, Tilak Nagar, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010. Kanpur. Pan:Aadfm6163H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Smt Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 29 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 11 2024 O R D E R

search and seizure was carried out u/s 132 of the Act on 24.09.2010 on M/s. Model Tanners Group to seizure of cash of Rs.2 crore from Mehtab Alam & his wife Smt. Farah Lari at Amousi Airport, Lucknow and the assessment was completed u/s 153C of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2013. During the assessment proceedings, the income of the assessee

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

TDS can not held to be non disclosure of the full particulars. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the notice under Section 147 of the Act to the petitioner stands vitiated in non compliance or fulfilment of the second condition as laid down in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act.” Shri Anil Kumar

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

TDS can not held to be non disclosure of the full particulars. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the notice under Section 147 of the Act to the petitioner stands vitiated in non compliance or fulfilment of the second condition as laid down in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act.” Shri Anil Kumar

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

TDS @ 30% of expenses of Rs. \n3074000/- where profit is estimated. \n3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while \nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,000/- being disallowances of expenses \non provision of section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is estimated. \n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred

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

search such statement cannot be itself be made the basis for addition, unless, the A.O have corroborative material in the hand to make such addition. If there is unaccounted investment the same should be taxed as undisclosed and not on the basis of un substantiated statement recorded either from the assessee or from the third party. It is therefore requested

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

search such statement cannot be itself be made the basis for addition, unless, the A.O have corroborative material in the hand to make such addition. If there is unaccounted investment the same should be taxed as undisclosed and not on the basis of un substantiated statement recorded either from the assessee or from the third party. It is therefore requested