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

131(1)(d) to DDIT(Inv.) Mumbai. It is not the case that the A.O. did not have knowledge of the above reports as the assessments order does find mention of the above reports. (h) The A.O. ignored these reports and the fact that the astronomical increase in share prices was not commensurate to the intrinsic value of the share

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

D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A). These cross appeals have been filed by the assessee and by Revenue against the impugned appellate order dated 18.04.2022 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kanpur-4 [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] for the A.Y. 2018-19. Grounds of appeal are as under: - ITA. NO. 144/LKW/2022 1

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

D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A). These cross appeals have been filed by the assessee and by Revenue against the impugned appellate order dated 18.04.2022 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kanpur-4 [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] for the A.Y. 2018-19. Grounds of appeal are as under: - ITA. NO. 144/LKW/2022 1

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

d) Total cash sales from\n01.01.2017to31.03.2017\n342303\n\nAnalysisofmonthwisecashsalesandcashdepositfrom01.04.2015to08\n.11.2015isasunder:\n\nCash Summary for period 01/04/2015 to 08/11/2015\n\nMONTH\nOPENING\nCASH\nSALE\nCASH\nRECEIVED\nCASH\nPAID\nCASH\nDEPOSITE\nD\nCASH\nWITHDRAW\nN\nCLOSING\nAPRIL\n2733.96\n9210152\n110565\n1629148\n7060000\n0\n634303\nMAY\n634302.96\n5066880\n905904\n3600000\n1195279\nJUNE\n1195279\n5561019\n2718922\n3454000\n583376\nJULY\n583375.96\n6750000\n3983968\n2500000\n849408

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

1. That the Ld. A.O. wrongly objected the direction of the Ld. CIT Appeal for deleting the addition Rs. 4,95,42,049/- on account of interest of un-utilised funds on the face of finding by the Ld. CIT Appeal that the interest accrued on the advances received by the assesse from the govt. for construction activities

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

D. R., on the other hand, heavily relied on the orders of the authorities below and submitted that various assessees have been taking Long Term Capital Gain through managed transactions with the help of exit providers, operators of various scrips and in this respect our attention was invited to the investigation report wherein the investigation was carried

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

D E R PER BENCH: These appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the separate orders of learned CIT(A) dated 25/09/2018 for assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15, dated 28/05/2018 for assessment year 2015-16 and dated 27/09/2018 for assessment year 2016-17 respectively. The assessee has I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 2 C.O. No.3

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

D E R PER BENCH: These appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the separate orders of learned CIT(A) dated 25/09/2018 for assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15, dated 28/05/2018 for assessment year 2015-16 and dated 27/09/2018 for assessment year 2016-17 respectively. The assessee has I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 2 C.O. No.3

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

D E R PER BENCH: These appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the separate orders of learned CIT(A) dated 25/09/2018 for assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15, dated 28/05/2018 for assessment year 2015-16 and dated 27/09/2018 for assessment year 2016-17 respectively. The assessee has I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 2 C.O. No.3

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

D E R PER BENCH: These appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the separate orders of learned CIT(A) dated 25/09/2018 for assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15, dated 28/05/2018 for assessment year 2015-16 and dated 27/09/2018 for assessment year 2016-17 respectively. The assessee has I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018 2 C.O. No.3

SMT. ANJU BANGER,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Anju Banger V. The Ito Prop. M/S Shree Balaji Syntex Ward 2 (1) C-50, Udyog Kunj Kanpur Panki Industrial Estate, Site V Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaqpb0526J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Pradeep Seth, Fca Respondent By: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03 09 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 06 09 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Kanpur, Dated 18/1/2016, For Assessment Year 2005-06, Taking The Following Grounds: 1) That The Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Fact In Confirming Disallowance Of Rs.27,760/- Being Adhoc/Estimated Disallowance Of 10% Out Of Various Expenses Under The Heads Sales Promotion, Travelling Expenses, Conveyance Expenses, General Expenses, Generator Rent & Maintenance Expenses, Repairs & Office Expenses 2) That The Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Further Erred In Law & On Fact In Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Had Not Disputed The Disallowance Out Of Telephone Expenses & That The Bills & Vouchers In Respect Of The Expenses Under The Aforesaid Heads Were Available But Were Never Required To Be Produced.

section 131(1)(d) of the Act of the ITO, Kannauj without allowing any opportunity to cross examine the parties.” 7. As is evident from the above ground raised before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee was aggrieved with the action of the Assessing Officer in not allowing the assessee any opportunity to cross-examine the parties

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

D. R., on the other hand, submitted that the additions in these cases have been made on account of denial of Long Term Capital Gain, which was arranged by the assessees with the help of certain stock brokers and certain entry providers. It was submitted that the sudden huge increase in share prices in the scrip of very little known

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

D. R., on the other hand, submitted that the additions in these cases have been made on account of denial of Long Term Capital Gain, which was arranged by the assessees with the help of certain stock brokers and certain entry providers. It was submitted that the sudden huge increase in share prices in the scrip of very little known

ZAIN ALAM,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

D. R., on the other hand, submitted that the additions in these cases have been made on account of denial of Long Term Capital Gain, which was arranged by the assessees with the help of certain stock brokers and certain entry providers. It was submitted that the sudden huge increase in share prices in the scrip of very little known

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

D. R., on the other hand, submitted that the additions in these cases have been made on account of denial of Long Term Capital Gain, which was arranged by the assessees with the help of certain stock brokers and certain entry providers. It was submitted that the sudden huge increase in share prices in the scrip of very little known

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

D. R., on the other hand, submitted that the additions in these cases have been made on account of denial of Long Term Capital Gain, which was arranged by the assessees with the help of certain stock brokers and certain entry providers. It was submitted that the sudden huge increase in share prices in the scrip of very little known

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

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

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

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

d) The shares so acquired held in demat account; e) The shares were sold to the companies through the brokers; f) The brokers through whom shares had been sold, had duly accepted such sales (by the "appellant); g) The sale of shares was supported by the bills and contract notes issued by the brokers and further supported by corresponding movement