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

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

bogus bills or non-genuine purchases is in fact no distinction. The principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions is that a notice under Section 263 of the Act cannot be issued beyond the period of two years from the date when the order sought to be revised is passed. The case law relied upon in the impugned order

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. MOHIT ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus LTCG. The AO required the assessee to establish the genuineness of the LTCG. The response of the assessee was that the payments made for the purchase of the scrip were through proper and authenticated banking channels and that the said shares had been sold on recognized stock exchange and that further the Long-Term Capital Gains earned were completely

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus LTCG. The AO required the assessee to establish the genuineness of the LTCG. The response of the assessee was that the payments made for the purchase of the scrip were through proper and authenticated banking channels and that the said shares had been sold on recognized stock exchange and that further the Long-Term Capital Gains earned were completely

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus LTCG. The AO required the assessee to establish the genuineness of the LTCG. The response of the assessee was that the payments made for the purchase of the scrip were through proper and authenticated banking channels and that the said shares had been sold on recognized stock exchange and that further the Long-Term Capital Gains earned were completely

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

147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132-A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall— (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish

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

147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132-A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall— (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish

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

147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132-A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall— (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish

SHIV ASREY SINGH,KANPUR vs. DY.CIT-2, KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shiv Asrey Singh V. The Dcit-2 Sb-17, Sbi Colony Kanpur Ratanlal Nagar Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aizps6999M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

147, the notice issued u/s.148 and the reassessment framed thereafter is all without jurisdiction, the order passed u/s 147/143(3) as upheld by the CIT(A) be quashed. 2. Because there being no income accrued during the year under consideration, and the entire capital gains having been accrued in A.Y. 2011-12 consequently there being no escapement of income, moreover

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

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

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. 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

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

SMT. NIRMALA NIGAM,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Nirmala Nigam V. Income Tax Officer 3(5) 104/102, P. Road Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Afcpn4993C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20 02 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 02 2019

bogus, fudged and un-verifiable. 10. BECAUSE during the course of proceedings before the lower authorities, the "appellant" had furnished/produced the relevant bills in support of cost of improvement and the same being authentic and genuine, the authorities below were not correct in making/sustaining disallowance to the extent of Rs. 7,83,760/-. 11. BECAUSE the disallowance of Rs.7

RAJINDER KUMAR,ALLAHABAD ROAD, FAIZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, FAIZABAD

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.293/Lkw/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajinder Kumar V. Income Tax Officer Mahavir Agricultural Industries, Income Tax Department, Allahabad Road, Faizabad- Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh- 224001. 224001. Pan:Aawpk2983L अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25 11 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 27 11 2025 Pronouncement: O R D E R Per Kul Bharat.: This Appeal, By The Assessee, Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 17.02.2025 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Against Law & Facts Of The Case On The File. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 10,58,720/- Made By The Ao Under Section 69C Of Income Tax Act In Respect Of Purchases Made By The Assessee From M/S. Mideast Integrated Steel Ltd. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A) Gravely Erred In Not Allowing Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard. 4. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Assessment Wrongly Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By The Ao. Page 2 Of 4 5. That The Appellant Begs To Add Or Amend Any Ground Of Appeal Before The Appeal Is Heard & Disposed Off.” 2. Apropos To The Grounds Of Appeal, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, At The Outset, Contended That The Impugned Order Has Been Passed Without Giving Effective Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. He, Therefore, Prayed That The Matter May Be Restored To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A) For Fresh Adjudication.

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the AO. Page 2 of 4 5. That the appellant begs to add or amend any ground of appeal before the appeal Is heard and disposed off.” 2. Apropos to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, contended that the impugned order has been passed

KHANDELWAL SOYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,RAMPUR vs. ACIT(CENTERAL), BAREILLY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the\nterms indicated hereinbefore

purchased\nnew plant and machinery and had also incurred repair expenditure of\nRs.1.23 lakhs in respect of the existing machinery, it is a fair and\nreasonable inference to draw that the assessee wants to keep the\nbusiness alive and revive the same at the earliest opportunity. The\nassessee has also stated before the BIFR that after the change

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