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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

bogus. In fact, the inference\ndrawn by the AO, that only a portion of\nit could be treated as bogus/unexplained,\n86-95\nwas not incorrect. Therefore, we hold that\nthe ld. Pr. CIT's finding of error is based\non incorrect appreciation of the facts\nbefore it, and his finding that the assessee\nhad not been able to substantiate

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

2. Orissa Cement Limited vs. CIT 250 ITR 856 (Delhi High Court) 3. Wilson Industries vs. CIT 259 ITR 318 (Madras High Court) 4. Order of Allahabad Bench of ITAT in the case of Shri Vimal Kishore Kapoor vs Income Tax Officer, I.T.A. No.658/All/96 and I.T.A. No.730/All/96 5. Order of Indore Bench of the ITAT in the case

M/S MADHAV BISCUITS PVT. LTD. ,KANPUR vs. DCIT -6, KANPUR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 40A(3) of the IT Act. The assessee’s explanation that the generator expenses had increased disproportionately because of frequent disruption in power supply is plausible. We also find that the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) have stated no reason why only a lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- was allowed on account of freight of diesel

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

40A(3) and no defect has been pointed out\nby the learned assessing officer in respect of any of\nthe purchase bill.\n\n11.\nThe sales receipts are below Rs 2 lac and are in\naccordance with the Income Tax provisions.There is no\nrequirement of KYC below Rs 2 lac sale and all the\nsales bills are in accordance with

ACIT, KANPUR vs. ARPIT OMAR, KANPUR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in limine, being not maintainable due to law tax effect

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraacit, Kanpur Arpit Omar V. 10/503, Laxmi Niwas, Hig-9, F1, Barra-8, Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh- 208027. Pan: Abapo2156Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”), pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17. The grounds of appeal of the Revenue are as under: - “1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A)-IV, Kanpur has erred in deleting the disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR vs. SMT. SHEHLA AHMED , KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit-1 V. Smt. Shehla Ahmad Kanpur 376-C, Allied Street Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpa4122N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.09/Lkw/2018 [In Ita No.181/Lkw/2018] Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Shehla Ahmad V. Dy. Cit-1 376-C, Allied Street Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpa4122N (Cross-Objector) (Respondent) Department By: Shri R. K. Vishvakarma, D.R. Assessee By: Shri Swarn Singh, Fca Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 08 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Revenue’S Appeal & Assessee’S Cross Objection Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Kanpur, Dated 1/12/2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Kanpur Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.22,00,000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Undisclosed

2. Order of ITAT Lucknow Bench in Shri Jeevan Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT in ITA No.390/LKW/2016. 3. Order of ITAT Lucknow Bench in the case of DCIT vs. BJD Paper Products, 20 taxmann.com 314 (Luck) 6. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the argument of the assessee that the penalty order of the A.O is liable to be quashed