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

deduction of interest on LIC loan from sale is against the tariff order decided by UPERC. 4. The CIT(A), Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,14,54,725/- on account of short centage shown by assessee in A.Y. 2009-10 without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not furnished

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

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

purchase of labs & equipment & never\nclaimed in the books of accounts of the assessee as revenue expenditure.\nThe provision to deduct TDS for sale of property started from 1-6-\n2013.Since the amount has been paid for lab and related equipment in the\nprevious year & as such the facts quoted in the assessment order\nregarding non compliance

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

deductions u/s 80IA treating the assessee (a\nwork contractor) as a developer.\n\n2.\nWhether the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the\ncase by treating bogus purchases

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

deductions u/s 80IA treating the assessee (a work contractor) as a developer. 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case by treating bogus purchases

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

deductions u/s 80IA treating the assessee (a work contractor) as a developer. 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case by treating bogus purchases

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

deductions u/s 80IA treating the assessee (a work contractor) as a developer. 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case by treating bogus purchases

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

purchases and sold only to earn bogus long term capital gains.” On the perusal of the above orders, it can be safely inferred that once all the transactions have occurred through Recognized Stock Exchange and the name of the assessee is not in any of list of beneficiaries, nor in the list of persons involved in the price rigging

SHIMLA PROPERTIES,LUCKNOW vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 Shimla Properties V. The Pcit 30C, Datiya House Lucknow Khursheed Bagh Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ablfs9732M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16 08 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 09 2022 O R D E R

deductions claimed by the assessee; that it is amply clear that the Assessing Officer had passed the assessment order without making relevant enquiries or verification on the two issues, i.e., rental income (Income from House Property) at Rs.26,49,780/- and plot income (Income from Other Sources) of Rs.68,600/- under the head ‘other sources’; that the case

SMT. SARITA GUPTA,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2015-16

bogus capital gain. The facts in brief are that assessee sold shares of CCL International Ltd. and earned long term capital gain. In support of long term capital gain the assessee filed before Assessing Officer the following documents (which is part of the paper book): S.No. Nature of documents Paper Book Page No 1. Copy of Bank Account of Federal

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

deductions u/s 80IA treating the assessee (a\nwork contractor) as a developer.\n2.\nWhether the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the\ncase by treating bogus purchases

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

In the result, appeals vide I

deductions u/s 80IA treating the assessee (a work contractor) as a developer.\n\n2.\nWhether the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case by treating bogus purchases

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

bogus purchases by way of debiting cash amount in Packing\nexpenses in earlier year also. | am of the view that genuineness of said\ncash expenditure is not open for verification. So, the claim cannot be\naccepted as such. Hence, in totality of facts and looking to the nature of\nbusiness, a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- would be disallowed

SHRI ACHAL GUPTA,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(1), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed and all the Stay

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

bogus capital gain. The facts in brief are that assessee sold shares of CCL International Ltd. and earned long term capital gain. In support of long term capital gain the assessee filed before Assessing Officer the following documents (which is part of the paper book): S.No. Nature of documents Paper Book Page No 1. Copy of Bank Account of Federal

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR vs. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

deduction in respect of cost of acquisition of the shares, it necessarily flows from such finding that the assessing officer did not believe the case of the assessee of purchase of the shares in question. Accordingly, the additional question does not arise in this case. The sole addition, which is subject matter of dispute in the instant appeal, relates

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW., LUCKNOW. vs. M/S. MG AUTOSALES PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW.

The appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshradcit, Circle-1 M/S. Mg Autosales Pvt Ltd V. Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57, 3/44 Ambalika, Gokhale Ramtirath Marg, Lucknow- Vihar Marg, Lucknow- 226001. 226001. Pan:Aamcs0717R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashok Seth, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11 12 2024 O R D E R

Bogus sales are not possible in sale of Honda Car as TCS @1% is deducted with sale consideration in excess of Rs. 10 Lakh per car. The assesse has also but up that the purchasers

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), KANPUR vs. SHRI RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

deduction in respect of cost of acquisition of the shares, it necessarily flows from such finding that the assessing officer did not believe the case of the assessee of purchase of the shares in question. Accordingly, the additional question does not arise in this case. The sole addition, which is subject matter of dispute in the instant appeal, relates

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

purchase cost of fixed assets and application of income. However, he thereafter allowed a deduction of Rs.1,55,15,994/-, being the depreciation on the same. The ld. AO also observed that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 5,59,55,800/- in its various bank accounts during the demonetization period. He asked the assessee to furnish copies

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

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

purchase cost of fixed assets and application\nof income. However, he thereafter allowed a deduction of Rs.1,55, 15,994/-, being\nthe depreciation on the same. The ld. AO also observed that the assessee had\ndeposited cash amounting to Rs.5,59,55,800/- in its various bank accounts during\nthe demonetization period. He asked the assessee to furnish copies