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

24-04-2023],the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments no addition can be made by Assessing Officer in absence of any incriminating material found during course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

x)\nCopy of month wise list of purchase and sales.\n(xi) Copy of ledger a/c of all the expenses claimed.\n8\nCopy Notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 15.10.2019 by ITO-\n1(2), Bareilly New along with queries given in annexure.\n9\nCopy of reply dated 01.11.2019 filed in response of notice u/s 142(1)\ndated

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

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

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

x. The Security transaction tax has been duly paid on these transactions. xi. That As per the rule 11UA 1(c) (a) (i) of IT Rules, 1962, if the quoted shares and securities are received by way of transactions carried out through any recognised stock exchange, the fair market value of such shares and securities shall be the transaction value

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR vs. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

x) Further during the course of assessment proceedings it is seen that notices u/s 133(6)/131 were issued to the share broker were complied with. This fact seen along with the evidences as referred in Para(ix) above duly prove the existence of the share broker along with the transaction with the assessee. The AO has wrongly compared that

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

24,75,000/- to assessee on 14.03.2014, Rs. 18,00,000/- on 23.01.2014 and Rs. 7,00,000/- on 25.03.2014. Manjusha has filed her return of income disclosing Rs. 2,23,500/- for A.Y. 2014-15, while receipts in bank statement are not matching with the return of income filed by him. Therefore, from entries in bank account

KASHI NATH SETH SARRAF PRIVATE LIMITED,HARDOI vs. ACIT, SITAPUR, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

2. In light of the above findings, we conclude that the addition of\nRs.1,92,29,000/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of\nthe Act is unwarranted, given that the amount represents sales\nalready declared and taxed. Therefore, the addition made by the AO\nand confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) is deleted, and these grounds of appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), KANPUR vs. SHRI RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

x) Further during the course of assessment proceedings it is seen that notices u/s 133(6)/131 were issued to the share broker were complied with. This fact seen along with the evidences as referred in Para(ix) above duly prove the existence of the share broker along with the transaction with the assessee. The AO has wrongly compared that