M/S STANDARD FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT LTD,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-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

KAMAL KANT 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

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

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

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

1) of the Act. The ld. AO also disallowed the accumulation of Rs.\n22,00,00,000/- under section 11(2) of the Act and furthermore added back the\nsame of Rs.14,96,91,583/- claimed as purchase cost of fixed assets and application\nof income. However, he thereafter allowed a deduction of Rs.1,55, 15,994/-, being\nthe depreciation

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

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

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)

bogus purchases and added back to the income of the assessee as the assessee had failed to substantiate the same with cogent evidence. He also brought it to tax under section 115BBE. He also made an addition of Rs. 6,893/- holding that the interest paid on late deposit of TDS was violative of Explanation 1

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

section 144(2) of the Act,\nAssessing Officer is duty bound to record his/her dissatisfaction on correctness\nof claim of assessee before invoking the provision of section 144. As it is\nevident from language of section 144 as well as of rule 8D, recording of the\ndissatisfaction of Assessing officer as regard to correctness of claim of\nexpenditure made

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

In the result, appeals vide I

section 14A read with Rule 8D was made\nsolely on the basis of investment by Assessee Company in SPVs without\nverifying objects of investment and understanding of relevant provision of law.\nIt is also submitted that section 14A carries heading 'Expenditure\nincurred in relation to income not includible in total income'\n\nAs per Section 14A:- 'For the purpose

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

bogus donations and the ultimate beneficiaries of the alleged donations are trustees. There is no evidence or material brought on record by the AO that during the year under consideration, the conditions prescribed under section 13 were violated by the assessee trust. In fact there is no case of violation of section 13 even

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

bogus donations and the ultimate beneficiaries of the alleged donations are trustees. There is no evidence or material brought on record by the AO that during the year under consideration, the conditions prescribed under section 13 were violated by the assessee trust. In fact there is no case of violation of section 13 even

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

bogus purchases as genuine ones after\nadmitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A.\n\nC.O.No.01/Lkw/2025\n\"1.\nBecause the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts & law not\ndeleting the issue relating to issuance of notice u/s 148 by\nAssessing Officer not accordance with law and facts.\n\n2.\nBecause the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining

GURU KRIPA ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PR. CIT, , BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

purchases, sales and closing stock\nof goods. We find that in the order of ld.\nPCIT, nowhere the closing stock details\nmaintained by the assessee was even\nsought to be doubted. Hence, there is\nabsolutely no case on merits to re-\nexamine the source of cash deposits made\nin the bank account during the\ndemonetisation period

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

purchases, details of Demat account, details of sales, sale bills of broker, ledger of broker and other relevant details which it self substantiate that the transactions done by me in this respect are LTCG in shares on which STT has been paid, hence are not taxable as per the applicable sections of The Income Tax Act 1961.It is humbly requested

HORIZON DWELLINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriahorizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd V. Pcit, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (Up)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aacch6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

1) of Section 263 of the Act only after examining "the record of any proceedings under the Act". The expression 'record' has also been defined in Clause (b) of the Explanation so as to include ail records relating to any proceedings available at the time of examination by the CIT. Thus, it is not only the assessment order

KAPIL KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BAREILLY , BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Kapil Khandelwal, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of 56, Moar Kothi, Gangapur, Bareilly Income Tax, Circle-I, Bareilly Pan: Aiypk4908M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Penalty Levied Upon The Assessee Under Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Ao On 17.03.2022 & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because Requisite Satisfaction For Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) If The Income Tax Act 1961 Was Not Recorded In The Regular Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2017 Passed A/S 100%, Therefore, Penalty Proceedings Got Wholly Vitiated & Consequently, The Id. "Cit(A)" Ought To Have Quashed The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022, Being Illegal, Bad-In-Law & Without Jurisdiction 2. Because The Show Cause Notice For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Did Not Specify Under Which Limb Penalty Was Sought To Be Imposed I.E.. Whether On Account Of Concealment Of Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Consequently, The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022 Passed By Faceless Assessing Officer Deserved To Be Quashed.

purchase of those shares was done with a view of generating bogus entry of long term capital gains for exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the said capital gains claimed exempt should not be disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. After

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 2(22)(e) are not applicable to the facts of the case,\nthe addition made be deleted.\nGround no. 4 relates to addition of Rs.13 26 600/- u/s 41 1 of the Income\nTax Act, 1961\nThe AO while dealing with the issue has held as under:\n5. Further, from Schedule “A” of balance sheet relating to sundry creditors

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. SUDHANSHU TRIVEDI, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit V. Sudhanshu Trivedi Lucknow 21/1013, Sector 21 Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ackpt4164G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, D.R. Respondent By: S/Shri Rajat Jain & Akshat Jain, Cas O R D E R

bogus Long Term Capital Gain to beneficiaries, such shares of these listed companies were purchased by the companies of Rich Group, like M/s Horizon Portfolio Ltd. at a very high price and such purchases culminated into Long Term Capital Gains which were claimed as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act by the beneficiaries. The assessee was required