SHRI CHETAN SHARMA,KANPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

forwards to the Assessing Officer an appraisal report, copies of warrant, and the panchanama and its annexures. These should be handed over to the A.O. within two and a half months from the date of initiation of the search. The appraisal report comprises the investigation wing’s findings on the search and may include a note on the modus operandi

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

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

loss account. An income and\nexpenditure account contain all revenues earned and expenses incurred by\nan educational institution during an accounting period. Since, the fund\nbased accounting has relevance for educational institutions, the Income\nand Expenditure Account have to show all the funds restricted,\nunrestricted fund, 'Corpus', ‘Designated Funds' and ‘General Funds'.\nThe AO disallowed the scholarship expenses payable amounting

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

carries on its activities within the four corners of its objects. Whatever income a company has it has to have a source. If the AO has to disbelieve the assessee submissions, the books of account have to be rejected and it has to be demonstrated/established that the assessee company has income from “other sources” also from which income has been

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

carries on its activities within the four corners of its objects. Whatever income a company has it has to have a source. If the AO has to disbelieve the assessee submissions, the books of account have to be rejected and it has to be demonstrated/established that the assessee company has income from “other sources” also from which income has been

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

carries heading 'Expenditure\nincurred in relation to income not includible in total income'\nAs per Section 14A:- 'For the purpose of computing the total income\nunder this chapter, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure\nincurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the\ntotal income under this Act.'\nSection

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

purchased during the year at AwasVikas, Civil Lines, Bareilly. The AO after making due enquiries accepted the transaction of the appellant in the original assessment proceedings. The appellant recorded and fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for his assessment. However AO in his reasons recorded as reproduced above grossly erred in law and on facts in issuing notice

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

purchased during the year at AwasVikas, Civil Lines, Bareilly. The AO after making due enquiries accepted the transaction of the appellant in the original assessment proceedings. The appellant recorded and fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for his assessment. However AO in his reasons recorded as reproduced above grossly erred in law and on facts in issuing notice

KHANDELWAL SOYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,RAMPUR vs. ACIT(CENTERAL), BAREILLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the\nterms indicated hereinbefore

bogus\nexpenses. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned additions may\nbe sustained. However, he could not rebut the contention of the\nLd. Counsel for the assessee that the impugned additions are not\nbased upon any incriminating documents gathered during the\ncourse of search.\n\n6. We have heard the rival contention and perused the\nmaterials available on record. The issue

SHRI BHUPENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-III, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Range-3 V. Shri Bhupendra Kumar 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Agarwal Marg, P.K. Complex, Lucknow- Bhagwati Industrial 226001. Compound, Mohibullapur, Lucknow-226020. Tan/Pan:Adppa9782P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Bhupendra Kumar V. Acit Range-Iii Agarwal Lucknow-226010. Bhagwati Industrial Compound, Mohibullapur, Lucknow- 226020. Tan/Pan: Adppa9782P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Suyash Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 10 2025 O R D E R

carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal. Out of the impugned additions related to unsecured loan, unsecured creditors and the expenses debited into the profit and loss account (P&L), the Ld. CIT(A) fully deleted the addition made on account of unsecured loan, partly allowed the claim with regard to unsecured

DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. SHRI BHUPENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Range-3 V. Shri Bhupendra Kumar 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Agarwal Marg, P.K. Complex, Lucknow- Bhagwati Industrial 226001. Compound, Mohibullapur, Lucknow-226020. Tan/Pan:Adppa9782P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Bhupendra Kumar V. Acit Range-Iii Agarwal Lucknow-226010. Bhagwati Industrial Compound, Mohibullapur, Lucknow- 226020. Tan/Pan: Adppa9782P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Suyash Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 02 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 10 2025 O R D E R

carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal. Out of the impugned additions related to unsecured loan, unsecured creditors and the expenses debited into the profit and loss account (P&L), the Ld. CIT(A) fully deleted the addition made on account of unsecured loan, partly allowed the claim with regard to unsecured

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

loss on sale of Fixed Assets Rs. 8,83,439/-along with provision for incentive allowance Rs. 21,40,000/- under the head Employee Benefit Expenses' and yet taking an adverse view of the matter which amounts to arbitrary exercise of power.3 5. That the Ld. PCIT was wrong in referring the ITAT order dated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

loss account for FY 2013-14 found in digital form were found and seized during the search proceedings in the case of the assessee, and assessees statement under section 132(4) of the Act was also recorded on this issue. 4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. MOHIT ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

loss account for FY 2013-14 found in digital form were found and seized during the search proceedings in the case of the assessee, and assessees statement under section 132(4) of the Act was also recorded on this issue. 4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

loss account for FY 2013-14 found in digital form were found and seized during the search proceedings in the case of the assessee, and assessees statement under section 132(4) of the Act was also recorded on this issue. 4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law. the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring

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

carried out on assessee. In these two years, there is no issue of commission on sales and the only issue involved in these two years, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of same statement, which has been recorded u/s 133A of the Act. During assessment year 2013-14, the addition has been made to the extent

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

carried out on assessee. In these two years, there is no issue of commission on sales and the only issue involved in these two years, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of same statement, which has been recorded u/s 133A of the Act. During assessment year 2013-14, the addition has been made to the extent

SH. SUKHVINDER SINGH,KANPUR vs. PR CIT, CENTRAL, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

bogus LTCG. Thus, a complete enquiry of the issue was made and the order was passed after proper and complete application of mind by the learned assessing officer. As regards the observations made by Ld. CIT (Central) in the show cause notice, the assessee begs to submit as under regarding the observations and allegations: (1) On observation number

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

bogus entries of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) by way of sale of shares. It is also the case of the Revenue that during the course of the search operations and post-search investigation, various incriminating documents were found and seized which disclosed that income from sale of shares of penny stock companies was disclosed as LTCG by its beneficiaries