ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

iii) That the addition has been made without bringing any adverse material or evidence on record merely on the basis of action under section 132 on some other assessee. (iv) That the addition has been made without any further investigation merely on the basis of presumption. 5.1 From the very beginning, it is clear that the re-assessment proceedings were

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

36 is Rs.59,39,941/-, below Rs.60 lakhs. Therefore, as per Circular no. 9 of 2024 dt. 17.09.2024 appeal of Revenue is not maintainable. APCO INFRATECH PVT LTD PAN: AADCA5639H AY 2018-19 CIT(A) Order dt. 19.12.2023 (against Order dt. 23.04.2021 u/s 143(3)) SI. No. Issue involved Ld. CIT(A) Before Hon'ble ITAT 1 Disallowances of deduction

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

iii) against decision of jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court. In the present case the CIT in the impugned order has not brought facts to show the existence of absence of enquiry Page 26 of 33 especially when the AO has already concluded that the purchases by the assessee from Jour parties mentioned by the DIT (Investigation) Mumbai

ALLIANCE NIRMAAN LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

iii) against decision of jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court. In the present\ncase the CIT in the impugned order has not brought facts to show the existence of absence of\nenquiry especially when the AO has already concluded that the purchases by the assessee from\nfour parties mentioned by the DIT (Investigation) Mumbai in its report were bogus

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

36(1)(va) of Rs. 1,13,096/- and disallowance of foreign commission treating the same as prior period expenditure of Rs. 2,60,000/-. 5. That the appellant being aggrieved went in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who deleted the above additions but confirmed the addition amounting of Rs.2,96,50,131/- to the extent of six sundry creditor

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

36(1)(va) of Rs. 1,13,096/- and disallowance of foreign commission treating the same as prior period expenditure of Rs. 2,60,000/-. 5. That the appellant being aggrieved went in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who deleted the above additions but confirmed the addition amounting of Rs.2,96,50,131/- to the extent of six sundry creditor

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

36 queries in aggregate which\nwere asked from the assessee by the A.O. and after that these proceedings\nwere concluded.\n\n2. As regards the enquiries/verification, the notice issued by A.O. u/s 142(1)\nvide notice no ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2019-20/1018933373(1) dated\n15.10.219 (available on paper book on page no. 184-189). The\nresponse of the notice was filed

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

36,120/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny. During the scrutiny proceedings, the AO noticed that for the relevant year under consideration, the Respondent had claimed exempted income of Rs. 96,75,939/- as receipts from Long Term Capital Gain [hereinafter referred to as ‘LTCG’] under Section

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

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 to explain the credit entry of Rs.1,36,00,000/- in his Bank account and after considering the submissions made by the assessee, the AO, not being satisfied with the replies furnished

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

36 is Rs. 59,39,941/- below Rs. 60 lakhs. Therefore, as per Circular no. 9 of 2024 dt. 17.09.2024 appeal of Revenue is not maintainable. APCO INFRATECH PVT LTD PAN: AADCA5639H AY 2018-19 CIT(A) Order dt. 19.12.2023 (against Order dt. 23.04.2021 u/s 143(3)) SI. No. Issue involved Ld. CIT(A) Before Hon'ble ITAT 1 Disallowances

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)

purchased for Rs. 30,00,000/-. On identical reasoning as in the two earlier cases, the AO went on to hold that the amount of LTCG being claimed as exempt was the unaccounted money of the assessee and was to be added to the income of the assessee as per provisions of section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment

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)

purchased for Rs. 30,00,000/-. On identical reasoning as in the two earlier cases, the AO went on to hold that the amount of LTCG being claimed as exempt was the unaccounted money of the assessee and was to be added to the income of the assessee as per provisions of section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment

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)

purchased for Rs. 30,00,000/-. On identical reasoning as in the two earlier cases, the AO went on to hold that the amount of LTCG being claimed as exempt was the unaccounted money of the assessee and was to be added to the income of the assessee as per provisions of section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment

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

1)(3)\nITA No 382/Ahd/2022\n\n9. 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

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

36,120/-. The return was I.T.A. No.153/Lkw/2020 Assessment. Year:2014-15 24 processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny. During the scrutiny proceedings, the AO noticed that for the relevant year under consideration, the Respondent had claimed exempted income of Rs. 96,75,939/- as receipts from Long Term Capital Gain

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

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

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

iii) Lalit Mohan Jalan (HUF) vs. ACIT – ITA No. 693/Kol/2009 (Kol ITAT) (iv) Mukesh R. Marolia vs. Addl. CIT – [2006] 6 SOT 247 (Mum) 15. We note that the ld. D.R. had heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bimal Chand Jain in Tax Appeal No. 18 of 2017. We note

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

36,120/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act and thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny. During the scrutiny proceedings, the AO noticed that for the relevant year under consideration, the Respondent had claimed exempted income of Rs. 96,75,939/- as receipts from Long Term Capital Gain [hereinafter referred to as ‘LTCG’] under Section