SHILPA KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Shilpa Khandelwal V. The Dy. Cit-2 330, Kalibari Bareilly Bareilly (U.P) Tan/Pan:Arypk5700A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 04 2025 O R D E R

bogus transactions of purchase and sale of shares. 12. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 5. The Ld. A.R., appearing on behalf of the assessee, submitted that the authorities below have erred, both in law as well as on facts in denying the assessee’s claim for exemption under section

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

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

purchase of shares for the purpose to earn dividend income which is exempted under section 10(33) of the Act and thus, not forming a part of the total income, and therefore the interest paid thereon had to be disallowed under Section 14A. 6. It may be mentioned at this stage that the Assessee has made a distinction between investments

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

purchase of shares for the purpose to earn dividend income which is exempted under section 10(33) of the Act and thus, not forming a part of the total income, and therefore the interest paid thereon had to be disallowed under Section 14A. 6. It may be mentioned at this stage that the Assessee has made a distinction between investments

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

purchase of shares for the purpose to earn dividend income which is exempted under section 10(33) of the Act and thus, not forming a part of the total income, and therefore the interest paid thereon had to be disallowed under Section 14A. 6. It may be mentioned at this stage that the Assessee has made a distinction between investments

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

bogus expenditure as the income of the trust was not chargeable to tax on account of the availability of exemption under section 11. Furthermore, in assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, no such disallowance had been made. It was further submitted that in the case of the assessee, a search and seizure proceeding had been

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

bogus expenditure as the income of the trust was not chargeable to tax on account of the availability of exemption under section 11. Furthermore, in assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, no such disallowance had been made. It was further submitted that in the case of the assessee, a search and seizure proceeding had been

ALLIANCE NIRMAAN LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

purchases by the assessee from\nfour parties mentioned by the DIT (Investigation) Mumbai in its report were bogus. The decision\nof the Mumbai and Delhi ITAT in the case of M/s. Shri Narayan Tatu Rane (supra) and M/s.\nAmira Pure Foods (P) Ltd. (supra) cited by the Ld. AR clearly supports the view that\nExplanation

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

bogus purchases. Deleted the addition in absence of any adverse evidence on record and relying on citation of PCIT vs. Tejua Rohit Kumar Kapadia 94 taxmann.com 324 (Gujrat). [Para 9.9 & 9.10 Page 109 & 110] Appeal filed by Revenue ITA 623/LKW/2024 3 Excess disallowances of deduction made u/s 801A(4) of the Act amounting

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

bogus purchases. Deleted the addition in absence of any adverse evidence on record and relying on citation of PCIT vs. Tejua Rohit Kumar Kapadia 94 taxmann.com 324 (Gujrat). [Para 9.9 & 9.10 Page 109 & 110] Appeal filed by Revenue ITA 623/LKW/2024 3 Excess disallowances of deduction made u/s 801A(4) of the Act amounting

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

purchase tax @ 5% has been -aid, that the said expenses have been incurred, without which the goods cannot be packed and sold, being fully verifiable, the amounts have been tax audited the disallowance made on adhoc basis and upheld by the CIT(A) is arbitrary and be deleted. 10. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts

MAHESH MITTAL,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-5, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshramahesh Mittal V. Acit, Range-5 1/16, Vinay Khand Gomti Income Tax Office Ashok Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Acqpm4459B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Akshay Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

purchased the shares and to whom it had sold them, therefore the addition under Section 68 by treating the LTCG as bogus was erroneous and liable to be set aside. 3. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in Confirming the order of the A.O. by treating the LTCG earned

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

purchases by the assessee from Jour parties mentioned by the DIT (Investigation) Mumbai in its report were bogus. The decision of the Mumbai and Delhi ITAT in the case of M/s. Shri Narayan Tatu Rane (supra) and M/s. Amira Pure Foods (P) Ltd. (supra) cited by the Ld. AR clearly supports the view that Explanation

SITA RAM RASTOGI,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(5),, LAKHIMPUR KHERI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2017-18 Sita Ram Rastogi V. The Ito Prop. M/S Shyam Jewellers Ward 3(5) Lakhimpur Kheri Lakhimpur Kheri Tan/Pan:Agapr6341R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 09 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 09 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 26.11.2021, For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Learned Income Tax Officer Made An Addition Of Rs.19,10,000/- As Un Explained Cash Deposit In The Books Maintained By The Assessee Whereas There Is No Such Single Deposit In The Books. 2. That The Additions Of Rs.15,688/- & Rs.5,693/- Have Been Made Without Any Basis Which Are Simply The Guess Work & Therefore Not Justified. 3. That The Learned Income Tax Officer Has Not Pointed Out Any Mistake Or Discrepancy In The Books Of Account As Is Evident From His Order In Paras 3 To 6 & Straight Away Made Up His Mind To Make Addition As Is Evident From His Observation Below Para 6 Of His Order. 4. That The Appellant Had Explained The Availability Of Funds (Old Sbn'S), Which Was Accepted By The Assessing Officer.

142(1) with detailed questionnaires dated 26.04.2019, 26.07.2019 and 11.09.2019 (APB : 24 – 34]; that reply had been emailed, making due compliance of the same [copies of the replies dated 15.11.2019 and 28.12.2019 are at APB: 35 – 39]; that the books of account were produced and the details of Cash Deposits made during the year as well as during the demonetization

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