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

41(1) and their purchases made during the year u/s 37 of the Act. As regard to opening balances of these creditors, the balances does not pertain to the present financial year and are from the preceding year which has been duly recognized by the appellant and payments are made from year to year and are also enclosed

ACIT(E), LUCKNOW vs. M/S. BHAGWANT INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, BIJNOR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

41, 45 and 46 Private unaided recognized\naffiliated educational institutions running professional courses like\nengineering and medical course -Whether entitled to charge a fee higher\nthan that charged by Government institutions ~ Held: Entitled to charge a\nhigher fee but such a fee cannot exceed the ceiling fixed in this regard\nHowever, commercialization of education not permissible fee - Meaning

D.C.I.T., RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. SHRI MANOJ GUPTA, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the department and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Manoj Gupta Acit, Range-3 V. B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, 27/2, P.K. Complex, Raja Lucknow-226024. Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Range-3 V. Manoj Gupta 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, Marg, P. K. Complex, Lucknow- Lucknow-226024. 226001. Pan: Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: Both These Appeals Arise Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-1, Lucknow [Hereinafter Referred As To “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred As To “The Act”] Dated 18.09.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. While Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Ita. No.444/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Department. As The Issues Involved In Both These Appeals Are Similar & Arise Out Of The Same Orders, The Appeals Are Taken Up For Disposal Together. The Grounds Of Appeal In Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Are As Under: -

41,592/- made due to difference in balances reported by Sundry Creditors. The assessee is aggrieved at the estimation of net profit @ 8% and not following the earlier net profit determined by the ITAT, Lucknow Bench. 10. Appearing for the Revenue Shri Sanjeev Krishan Sharma, Ld. Sr. DR pointed out that the assessee had not produced

SHRI MANOJ GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the department and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Manoj Gupta Acit, Range-3 V. B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, 27/2, P.K. Complex, Raja Lucknow-226024. Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Range-3 V. Manoj Gupta 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, Marg, P. K. Complex, Lucknow- Lucknow-226024. 226001. Pan: Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: Both These Appeals Arise Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-1, Lucknow [Hereinafter Referred As To “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred As To “The Act”] Dated 18.09.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. While Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Ita. No.444/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Department. As The Issues Involved In Both These Appeals Are Similar & Arise Out Of The Same Orders, The Appeals Are Taken Up For Disposal Together. The Grounds Of Appeal In Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Are As Under: -

41,592/- made due to difference in balances reported by Sundry Creditors. The assessee is aggrieved at the estimation of net profit @ 8% and not following the earlier net profit determined by the ITAT, Lucknow Bench. 10. Appearing for the Revenue Shri Sanjeev Krishan Sharma, Ld. Sr. DR pointed out that the assessee had not produced

GURDAS MAL ARORA,KANPUR vs. THE A O CIRCLE-1(2)(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshragurdas Mal Arora V. The Assessing Officer, 21/L/4, Daboli, Circle-1(2)(1) Kanpur. 16/69, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Afepm4342J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit-Dr O R D E R

41-45) Copy of intimation under section 143(1) for A.Y 2015-16 (Pg 35-40) Assessment Year 2016-17 Copy of VAT return & VAT order of the F.Y 2015-16 (Pg 66-68 & 69-71) Copy of ITR alongwith financial statement for A.Y 2016-17( Pg 54-61) Copy of intimation under section

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2), LUCKNOW vs. M/S DEV BHOOMI PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2012-13

purchase money if any, nor shall his title to be share be affected by any irregularity of invalidity in the proceedings in reference to the forfeiture, sale of disposal of the share. I.T.A. No.116/Lkw/2017 Assessment Year:2012-13 8 31. The provision of these regulations as to forfeiture shall apply in case of non-payment sun which, by the term

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

M/S. MAA RAKLTDANTIKA CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT/ACIT, RANGE-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

41 of 1958, order dt. 15.05.1959[1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC): “Taking into consideration the entire circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that there was no material on which the Income-tax Officer could come to the conclusion that the firm was not genuine. There are many surmises and conjectures, and the conclusion is the result of suspicion which

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. MAA RAKTDANTIKA CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

41 of 1958, order dt. 15.05.1959[1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC): “Taking into consideration the entire circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that there was no material on which the Income-tax Officer could come to the conclusion that the firm was not genuine. There are many surmises and conjectures, and the conclusion is the result of suspicion which

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

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

bogus donations from Poddar Group of trusts to the tune of Rs.37500000 during the Page 28 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 relevant year. This information was received by the Assessing officer from Investigation wing Mumbai and on the basis of the same, reassessment proceedings were initiated in the hands of the assessee. Grounds

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

bogus donations from Poddar Group of trusts to the tune of Rs.37500000 during the Page 28 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 relevant year. This information was received by the Assessing officer from Investigation wing Mumbai and on the basis of the same, reassessment proceedings were initiated in the hands of the assessee. Grounds

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

bogus expenditure as the income of the trust was not\nchargeable to tax on account of the availability of exemption under section 11.\nFurthermore, in assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, no\nsuch disallowance had been made. It was further submitted that in the case of the\nassessee, a search and seizure proceeding had been

NISHAT ARA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

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

section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale of securities be treated

SHAHEEN RABIA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

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

section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale of securities be treated

NAUSHEEN FARAH,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

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

section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale of securities be treated

MARGHOOB ALAM,KANPUR vs. DCUT, CC-II, KANPUR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

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

section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale of securities be treated