DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. M/S.DEE CONTROL AND ELECTRIC PRIVATE LIMITED, KANPUR

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

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

section 69C, though the AO had held that these were bogus expenses to inflate expenses. The purchases were duly supported by sale agreements that had been seized during a search operation at the seller’s premises so the AO could not hold that these transactions were not supported by any purchase bills or sales bills. The AO had accepted that

M/S. MOTOR FAB SALES PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT/ACIT-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, Departmental appeal bearing

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit/Acit-4 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Lucknow Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Theacit-1 V. M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Shri H.S. Usmani, Cit(Dr)

20 of 29 (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. MOTOR FAB SALES PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, Departmental appeal bearing

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit/Acit-4 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Lucknow Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Theacit-1 V. M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Shri H.S. Usmani, Cit(Dr)

20 of 29 (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause

ROSHANI TRIPATHI,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT RANGE 1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

purchase as bogus if sales are genuine. Revised Additional Grounds of appeal We have to humbly submit that we have filed the above said appeal before the Hon'ble bench, which has now been fixed for hearing on dated 06th March 2024. It is submitted that the ground of appeals as taken are narrative in nature and we wish

SHRI CHETAN SHARMA,KANPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

purchase of shares. Still the AO did not carry out independent/IIIrd party verification/enquiries thereby, rendering the order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.” D. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CIT) issued an order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing a report from ITO-II, & CI, Kanpur, alleging several

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

20,15,078/- to the total income of the Assessee whereas the Ld. CIT 2. has deleted the addition on the basis that income relating to assessment year 1977-78 to 2008-09 cannot be added to income for assessment year 2009-10. 3. The Ld. A.O. is wrong in objecting to the so-called addition

BADRI PRASAD VISHWA NATH JEWELS,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

20,00,000/- can in any case not be made under section 68 of the Act. Therefore, he submitted the addition was legally wrong and the same addition can also not be sustained under any other section once the Assessing Officer invoked section 68 of the I.T. Act. In this regard also he placed reliance on Third Member decision

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

20. The above facts of the case and the conduct of assessment proceeding alongwith with its approval and position of law and case authorities relied upon clearly establishes that there has been no application of mind by the approving authority and the same has been approved mechanically for the sake of giving approval for completion of assessment

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

20. The above facts of the case and the conduct of assessment proceeding alongwith with its approval and position of law and case authorities relied upon clearly establishes that there has been no application of mind by the approving authority and the same has been approved mechanically for the sake of giving approval for completion of assessment

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

20. The above facts of the case and the conduct of assessment proceeding alongwith with its approval and position of law and case authorities relied upon clearly establishes that there has been no application of mind by the approving authority and the same has been approved mechanically for the sake of giving approval for completion of assessment

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

purchase tax @ 5% has\nbeen -aid, that the said expenses have been incurred, without which the\ngoods cannot be packed and sold, being fully verifiable, the amounts have\nbeen tax audited the disallowance made on adhoc basis and upheld by\nthe CIT(A) is arbitrary and be deleted.\n10. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts

KAPIL KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BAREILLY , BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Kapil Khandelwal, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of 56, Moar Kothi, Gangapur, Bareilly Income Tax, Circle-I, Bareilly Pan: Aiypk4908M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 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), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Penalty Levied Upon The Assessee Under Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Ao On 17.03.2022 & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because Requisite Satisfaction For Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) If The Income Tax Act 1961 Was Not Recorded In The Regular Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2017 Passed A/S 100%, Therefore, Penalty Proceedings Got Wholly Vitiated & Consequently, The Id. "Cit(A)" Ought To Have Quashed The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022, Being Illegal, Bad-In-Law & Without Jurisdiction 2. Because The Show Cause Notice For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Did Not Specify Under Which Limb Penalty Was Sought To Be Imposed I.E.. Whether On Account Of Concealment Of Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Consequently, The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022 Passed By Faceless Assessing Officer Deserved To Be Quashed.

purchase of those shares was done with a view of generating bogus entry of long term capital gains for exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the said capital gains claimed exempt should not be disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. After

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

bogus, inflated or non-genuine and in absence of any such finding, balances of the Trade Payables/Sundry Creditors cannot be added back as unexplained. In support of his arguments, the Ld. A.R. has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Zazsons Export Ltd. vs. CIT in Income Tax appeal No.128

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

bogus claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act]. After putting all the evidences on record, strong surrounding circumstantial evidences [supported by the Principle of Human Probabilities, as considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in landmark judgments of in cases of Sumati Dayal & Durga Prasad More] revealed that the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) by the assessee

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-4, LUCKNOW vs. SMT. MOHINI AGARWAL, L/H LATE MUKESH AGARWAL, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 68 cannot be applied for taxing unconfirmed sundry creditors - CIT vs. Vardhman Overseas Ltd (2012) 343 ITR 0408 (Del). The A.O. has not established with evidence that the liability in respect of the above outstanding balances has ceased to exist. AO has gone on presumption and that too by placing the burden wrongly on the shoulders of the Assessee

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

bogus and unexplained.\nAccordingly, the learned A.O. made the addition 10,28,38,000/-\nu/s 68 read with section 115BBE.\nIt is prayed that in the course of Appellate proceedings in order\nto substantiate the cash sales made during the demonetization\nperiod which was later on deposited in Bank Accounts on\ndifferent date. The assessee submitted the copy of Sale

SANGEETA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DCIT/ACIT-,LUCKNOW NEW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrasangeeta Yadav V. Dcit/Acit-4 Chiraiyabagh, Raebareli Road, Lucknow New, Pratyaksh Utarthia, Lucknow-226025. Kar Bhawan, Lucknow- 226001. Pan:Acppy8178G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Dilip Kumar Singh, Fca Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) O R D E R (A) The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)- Delhi, Dated 07.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

20,000 deposited in the Dena Bank account is unrelated to SBN deposits during the demonetization period and should not be treated Page 2 of 5 as “Other Cash Receipts."” However, this fact and the supporting documents were completely ignored during the assessment and appeal stages, leading to an unjust and improper decision. To substantiate my claim, I submitted