M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

bogus purchases as genuine ones after admitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A.” C.O.No.01/Lkw/2025 “1. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts & law not deleting the issue relating to issuance of notice u/s 148 by Assessing Officer not accordance with law and facts. 2. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUCKNOW, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW vs. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., VIBHUTI KHAND GOMTI NAGAR LKO

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

bogus purchases as genuine ones after admitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A.” C.O.No.01/Lkw/2025 “1. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts & law not deleting the issue relating to issuance of notice u/s 148 by Assessing Officer not accordance with law and facts. 2. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition

M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. D/ACIT-1,CENTRAL-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

bogus purchases as genuine ones after admitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A.” C.O.No.01/Lkw/2025 “1. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts & law not deleting the issue relating to issuance of notice u/s 148 by Assessing Officer not accordance with law and facts. 2. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

purchases as bogus. Multiple appeals were filed by both the Revenue and the assessee.", "held": "The Tribunal ruled that interest earned on FDRs kept for security/retention money, even if related to business, is not 'derived from' eligible business and thus not deductible under Section 80IA. The disallowance under Section 14A was held to be attracted only when exempt income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUCKNOW vs. RAJEEV KUMAR KAPOOR, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

business of Gold, Bullion and Gold ornaments. Its accounts were audited under section 44AB of the Income Tax Act. During the entire financial year, the assessee had not done a single sale / purchase in cash. All the sale purchases were either through banking channels or through sale / purchase adjustment. Furthermore, it was submitted that 7 of the 8 parties from

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

bogus sales represent the premium money charged over and above normal rates then also it shall be income from business only. A I.T.A. No.384/Lkw/2020 I.T.A. No.437/Lkw/2020 10 company is a separate legal entity. It operates and carries on its activities within the four corners of its objects. Whatever income a company has it has to have a source

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

bogus sales represent the premium money charged over and above normal rates then also it shall be income from business only. A I.T.A. No.384/Lkw/2020 I.T.A. No.437/Lkw/2020 10 company is a separate legal entity. It operates and carries on its activities within the four corners of its objects. Whatever income a company has it has to have a source

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. M/S.DEE CONTROL AND ELECTRIC PRIVATE LIMITED, KANPUR

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

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

income of the assessee was therefore, computed at Rs. 1.57,83,199/- on account of such estimation resulting in an addition of Rs. 49,40,359/- on this account. After adding back the allegedly bogus purchases, the assessee was assessed at Rs. 5,80,83,199/-. 3. Aggrieved with the said additions, the assessee went before

M/S. NARAIN PROPERTIES LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ACIT-VI, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

bogus and therefore, appeal is dismissed on this ground.” 4. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 15.03.2010 of learned CIT(A). In the course of appellate proceedings, in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, two paper books were filed from the assessee’s side containing the following particulars: S.No. Particulars 1 Photocopy

SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

purchase\nbills of tins etc. Therefore, upon the submissions/explanation, the\nundersigned has made an enquiry in this regard through Shri Vikas\nChand Gupta, Inspector of this office. The Inspector of Income tax visited\nthe premises of M/s. Scraptin Enterprises and met the owner of said Firm\nand enquired about any business transaction with M/s. R.K. Agro\nEnterprises. The firm

ACIT(E), LUCKNOW vs. M/S. BHAGWANT INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, BIJNOR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

business concerns being run by\nthe members of the Managing Committee of the Society and AO treated it\nas an unexplained expenditure under the provision of Section 69C of the\nIncome Tax Act and added to the income.\nAppellant has submitted that the above amount paid to M/s Baxil Pharma\nPrivate Limited is in fact for the purchase and establishment

ROSHANI TRIPATHI,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT RANGE 1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

purchase as bogus ignoring the 27D issued by collector of TCS, a vital information available Assessing Officer. 5. The CIT(A) NFAC has erred in confirming the order of Assessing Officer ignoring the past history of the one of the supplier of the assessee i.e. ABLAXE INFO SOLUTIONS PVT LTD a company registered in New Delhi, against which investigation

MS. GUNJAN AGARWAL,BARABANKI. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-5(4), BARABANKI.

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Ys. 2012-13 Ms. Gunjan Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer-5(4), Fatehpur, Barabanki. Barabanki- 225001 (U.P.). Pan Aaspa 4237D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Shubham Rastogi, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit( Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/02/2024 O R D E R

income from Long Term 2 Capital Gain to the tune of Rs.8,60,714/- from speculative business and claimed it as exempt. The assessee was required by the Assessing Officer to file relevant documents from time to time to which the assessee duly responded. Thereafter, the assessment was completed after making an addition u/s.68 of the Act amounting to Rs.8

D.C.I.T., RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. SHRI MANOJ GUPTA, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the department and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Manoj Gupta Acit, Range-3 V. B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, 27/2, P.K. Complex, Raja Lucknow-226024. Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Range-3 V. Manoj Gupta 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, Marg, P. K. Complex, Lucknow- Lucknow-226024. 226001. Pan: Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: Both These Appeals Arise Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-1, Lucknow [Hereinafter Referred As To “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred As To “The Act”] Dated 18.09.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. While Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Ita. No.444/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Department. As The Issues Involved In Both These Appeals Are Similar & Arise Out Of The Same Orders, The Appeals Are Taken Up For Disposal Together. The Grounds Of Appeal In Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Are As Under: -

income comes to 8%. It was submitted that the assessee had already disclosed a profit of 5.5% and Hon'ble ITAT, Lucknow Bench in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2012-13 had accepted a presumptive rate of taxation of 5% in the A.Y. 2012-13. It was argued that since the business of the assessee remains

SHRI MANOJ GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the department and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Manoj Gupta Acit, Range-3 V. B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, 27/2, P.K. Complex, Raja Lucknow-226024. Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Range-3 V. Manoj Gupta 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, Marg, P. K. Complex, Lucknow- Lucknow-226024. 226001. Pan: Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: Both These Appeals Arise Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-1, Lucknow [Hereinafter Referred As To “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred As To “The Act”] Dated 18.09.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. While Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Ita. No.444/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Department. As The Issues Involved In Both These Appeals Are Similar & Arise Out Of The Same Orders, The Appeals Are Taken Up For Disposal Together. The Grounds Of Appeal In Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Are As Under: -

income comes to 8%. It was submitted that the assessee had already disclosed a profit of 5.5% and Hon'ble ITAT, Lucknow Bench in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2012-13 had accepted a presumptive rate of taxation of 5% in the A.Y. 2012-13. It was argued that since the business of the assessee remains

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

bogus expenditure as the income of the trust was not chargeable to tax on account of the availability of exemption under section 11. Furthermore, in assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, no such disallowance had been made. It was further submitted that in the case of the assessee, a search and seizure proceeding had been

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

business. Explanation.—For the purposes of sub-clause (ii) of clause (c), in determining whether any part of the income or any property of any trust or institution is during the previous year used or applied, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of any person referred to in sub-section (3), in so far as such use or application relates

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

business. Explanation.—For the purposes of sub-clause (ii) of clause (c), in determining whether any part of the income or any property of any trust or institution is during the previous year used or applied, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of any person referred to in sub-section (3), in so far as such use or application relates