NISHAT ARA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

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

bogus loss in share dealings. The Tribunal being the final fact-finding body had found the fact on the basis of the materials on record that the assessee has suffered the loss in share dealing to the tune of Rs. 49,210. These findings cannot be said to be perverse on the basis of the materials considered and discussed

MARGHOOB ALAM,KANPUR vs. DCUT, CC-II, KANPUR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

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

bogus loss in share dealings. The Tribunal being the final fact-finding body had found the fact on the basis of the materials on record that the assessee has suffered the loss in share dealing to the tune of Rs. 49,210. These findings cannot be said to be perverse on the basis of the materials considered and discussed

SHAHEEN RABIA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

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

bogus loss in share dealings. The Tribunal being the final fact-finding body had found the fact on the basis of the materials on record that the assessee has suffered the loss in share dealing to the tune of Rs. 49,210. These findings cannot be said to be perverse on the basis of the materials considered and discussed

NAUSHEEN FARAH,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

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

bogus loss in share dealings. The Tribunal being the final fact-finding body had found the fact on the basis of the materials on record that the assessee has suffered the loss in share dealing to the tune of Rs. 49,210. These findings cannot be said to be perverse on the basis of the materials considered and discussed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. M/S. HABIB TANNERY PRIVATE LIMITED, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S Habib Tannery Pvt. Ltd. Tax-6 15-B, 150 Ft. Road Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aach4129E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri H. S. Usmani, Cit (Dr) O R D E R

131 of the Act on 18.02.2015 and 11.03.2015, Shri Saeed Ahmad voluntarily surrendered an additional income of Rs.1,00,00,000/-, which was treated as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources and added to the total income of the assessee. 2.1 Further, on perusal of the Balance Sheet of the assessee- company, the AO proceeded to verify the genuineness

SHRI SWATANTRA KUMAR SHUKLA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Swatantra Kumar Shukla, Vs. Dy. Cit-3, Kanpur 61/139, Sita Ram Mohal, Kanpur- 208001 (U.P.) Pan: Acaps5484N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 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)- 1, Kanpur, Passed On 29.07.2019 Wherein The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 29.12.2017 Has Been Dismissed. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That The Ld Cit(A) Was Wrong In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,39,81,850- Made By The Ao Without Any Valid Reason. 2. That The Revenue Was Wrong In Disallowing The Claim Of Long Term Capital Gains U/S 10(38) Of The Act & The Same Is Against Facts & Law. 3. That The Various Case Law Cited By The Revenue In Rejecting The Claim Is Wrong In As Much As The Facts Of The Appellant'S Case Are Distinguishable From The Cited Case Law. 4. That The Revenue Was Wrong In Invoking Section 68 Of The Act & The Same Is Not Justified & Unwarranted. 5. That It Was Wrong On The Part Of Revenue To Invoke Section 68 Of The Act In As Much As Initial Onus On The Assessee To Establish Identity, Credit Capacity Of The Creditor & Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Discharged. 6. That The Finding Of The Ld Ao That 'Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.1 39,81,850/ Claimed By The Assessee Is Held To Have Been Arranged By The Assessee Through

131 by the DDIT (Inv.), Kolkata, had revealed that the script of, ‘Jackson Investments Ltd.,’ had been used to provide such accommodation entries. Specific reference was made to the statement of an entry operator Sh. Arun Kumar Khemka, who had admitted to controlling and managing various paper companies including Jackson Investments Ltd., and pointed out that no business activities were

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

section 37 of the IT Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. AO well as Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.25,52,798/- on account of extra profit on the alleged shortage of stock. (This ground of appeal was not pressed by the assessee). 4. That the order passed by Ld. AO is bad on facts

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

section 37 of the IT Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. AO well as Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.25,52,798/- on account of extra profit on the alleged shortage of stock. (This ground of appeal was not pressed by the assessee). 4. That the order passed by Ld. AO is bad on facts

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed and Stay Application is dismissed as infructuous

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

section 68 of the Act :- (i) ITO vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal – ITA No. 289/Agr/2009 (Agra ITAT) (ii) ACIT vs.Amita Agarwal & Others - ITA Nos. 247/(Kol)/ of 2011 (Kol ITAT) (iii) Lalit Mohan Jalan (HUF) vs. ACIT – ITA No. 693/Kol/2009 (Kol ITAT) (iv) Mukesh R. Marolia vs. Addl. CIT – [2006] 6 SOT 247 (Mum) 15. We note that

SHRI UMA SHANKER DHANDHANIA,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(5), KANPUR

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

section 68 of the Act :- (i) ITO vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal – ITA No. 289/Agr/2009 (Agra ITAT) (ii) ACIT vs.Amita Agarwal & Others - ITA Nos. 247/(Kol)/ of 2011 (Kol ITAT) (iii) Lalit Mohan Jalan (HUF) vs. ACIT – ITA No. 693/Kol/2009 (Kol ITAT) (iv) Mukesh R. Marolia vs. Addl. CIT – [2006] 6 SOT 247 (Mum) 15. We note that

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

131 (Guj.) On the basis of the above facts and circumstances the notice issued u/s 148 is without jurisdiction and needs to be quashed. GROUND NO :- 2 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned AO is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. The order passed

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

131 (Guj.) On the basis of the above facts and circumstances the notice issued u/s 148 is without jurisdiction and needs to be quashed. GROUND NO :- 2 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned AO is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. The order passed

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

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, in as much as the original assessment order dated 11-02-2016 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. That the Ld. PCIT was wrong in not passing an speaking order ignoring the submissions made by the assessee during proceeding u/s 263 rendering the order under appeal

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

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

bogus companies and therefore, she argued that Assessing Officer had made the additions on the basis of statement of assessee along with findings of Inspector Tax Inspector. 3.1 Learned CIT, D.R. further submitted that the second issue arising in two appeals out of the four appeals is the action of learned CIT(A) by which he has allowed relief

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

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

bogus companies and therefore, she argued that Assessing Officer had made the additions on the basis of statement of assessee along with findings of Inspector Tax Inspector. 3.1 Learned CIT, D.R. further submitted that the second issue arising in two appeals out of the four appeals is the action of learned CIT(A) by which he has allowed relief

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

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

bogus companies and therefore, she argued that Assessing Officer had made the additions on the basis of statement of assessee along with findings of Inspector Tax Inspector. 3.1 Learned CIT, D.R. further submitted that the second issue arising in two appeals out of the four appeals is the action of learned CIT(A) by which he has allowed relief

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

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

bogus companies and therefore, she argued that Assessing Officer had made the additions on the basis of statement of assessee along with findings of Inspector Tax Inspector. 3.1 Learned CIT, D.R. further submitted that the second issue arising in two appeals out of the four appeals is the action of learned CIT(A) by which he has allowed relief

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

131/- as on\n08.11.2016. As stated, supra, it is\npertinent to note that the assessee had\nindeed deposited cash in the bank account\nfrom 01.04.2016 to 08.11.2016 in the\nsum of Rs.94,23,500/-. While it is so,\nthere is no reason to suspect the cash\ndeposit made during demonetization\nperiod in the sum of Rs.80,50,000/-.\nMore