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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

56,447/- u/s 14A of the IT. Act read with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The express provisions of section 14A r.w.r 8D do not draw any relation to such expenditures in relation to exempt income. 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts as the assessee invested a substantial amount of Rs.15

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

56,447/- u/s 14A of the IT. Act read with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The express provisions of section 14A r.w.r 8D do not draw any relation to such expenditures in relation to exempt income. 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts as the assessee invested a substantial amount of Rs.15

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

56,447/- u/s 14A of the IT. Act read with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The express provisions of section 14A r.w.r 8D do not draw any relation to such expenditures in relation to exempt income. 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts as the assessee invested a substantial amount of Rs.15

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

56,447/- u/s 14A of the IT. Act read with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The express provisions of section 14A r.w.r 8D do not draw any relation to such expenditures in relation to exempt income. 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts as the assessee invested a substantial amount of Rs.15

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

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.

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

ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), KANPUR, KANPUR vs. KHANNA SALES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Ito, Vs. Khanna Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(3)(1), Kanpur 54/34, Nayaganj, Kanpur Pan: Aabck4442N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Swarn Singh, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) For The A.Y. 2017- 18 On 29.12.2019. The Grounds Of The Appeal Are As Under: - “1- Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating The Pattern Of Cash Sales Discussed By The Assessing Officer In Detail In His Order Which Shows A Substantial Jump Of 38% Of Total Sales In The Month Of October, 2016 I.E. The Period Immediately Prior To Demonetization In November, 2016. Cash Sales Before & After This Period Is Negligible. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend Any One Or More Of The Grounds Of Appeal As Stated Above As & When Need For Doing So May Arise. 3. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition Of 3 Rs. 2,64.19.000/- On Account Of Cash Deposits U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 4. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating That U/S 68 The Ao Is Not Required To Reject The Books Of Accounts. The Only Requirement Is That, If The Explanation Offered By The Assessee Is Not, In The Opinion Of The Assessing Officer Satisfactory, The Sum (Cash Sales) So Credited Can Be Charged To Income-Tax As The Income Of The Assessee Of That Previous Year.”

56,167/-, the total cash sales were Rs. 3,62,31,285/- and of this in the month of October 2016 alone, cash sales had been shown at Rs. 1,37,21,025/- which went to prove that bogus sales had been credited in the books of accounts to accommodate unaccounted sales. The ld. AO also pointed out that purchase

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

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

56,00,000/- on account of bogus unsecured loan and Rs.22,80,000/- on account of commission thereon on the basis of a additional document submitted by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. 2. Ld. CIT (A)-III, Kanpur failed to confront the Assessing Officer with the affidavit filed even though the same was nowhere I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

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

56,00,000/- on account of bogus unsecured loan and Rs.22,80,000/- on account of commission thereon on the basis of a additional document submitted by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. 2. Ld. CIT (A)-III, Kanpur failed to confront the Assessing Officer with the affidavit filed even though the same was nowhere I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

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

56,00,000/- on account of bogus unsecured loan and Rs.22,80,000/- on account of commission thereon on the basis of a additional document submitted by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. 2. Ld. CIT (A)-III, Kanpur failed to confront the Assessing Officer with the affidavit filed even though the same was nowhere I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

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

56,00,000/- on account of bogus unsecured loan and Rs.22,80,000/- on account of commission thereon on the basis of a additional document submitted by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. 2. Ld. CIT (A)-III, Kanpur failed to confront the Assessing Officer with the affidavit filed even though the same was nowhere I.T.A. Nos.701, 702, 582 & 703/Lkw/2018

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

section 115BBE is directlyrelated to\ndemonetization which would be evident from objects and reasons\nfor such amendment. In order to consider the same, the objects\nand reasons of Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill 2016 is\nextracted hereunder:\n\nPress Information Bureau Government of India Ministry of\nFinance 28-November-2016 15:56 IST Taxation Laws (Second\nAmendment) Bill, 2016 introduced

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

56,300/- totalling to Rs.97,45,040/- was seized. Subsequently, locker no 309 in oriental bank of commerce, Ranjeet Nagar, Kanpur, in the name of Shri Sukhwinder Singh and Smt. Suman Preet was also operated in which jewellery amounting to Rs. 2,06,20,623/- was found but not seized, all the jewellery items were returned back at the same

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

Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de-mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels.” The above noted factors, including

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

56 pm, 26/11/2025] .: 6(5)(i) The provisions of section 10(268) of the Act allow exemption to an assesse corporation established by a Central, State or Provincial Act established or formed for promoting the interests of the members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes or backward classes or of any two or all of them. The appellant

TACK EXIM PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE2(3)(1), KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Tack Exim Pvt. Limited V. Asstt. Commissioner Of 11/18-A, Pokharpur Income Tax, Jajmau, Kanpur Circle 2(3)(1), Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aadct7929D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 11 2024 O R D E R

56,21,720/-. 2.1 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The NFAC sustained addition of Rs.1,18,82,000/- and deleted the addition of Rs.7

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

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

purchase and sale of shares as asked for have been submitted before the learned Assessing Officer from time to time. However, the ld. Assessing Officer has treated the transaction in equity shares of M/s Sulabh Engineering and Services Ltd. as bogus and added Rs. 1,12,13,010/- being Long Term Capital Gain on sale of such equity shares only

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

purchased during the year at AwasVikas, Civil Lines, Bareilly. The AO after making due enquiries accepted the transaction of the appellant in the original assessment proceedings. The appellant recorded and fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for his assessment. However AO in his reasons recorded as reproduced above grossly erred in law and on facts in issuing notice