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)

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 (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and (ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUCKNOW vs. RAJEEV KUMAR KAPOOR, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

69C r.w.s 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ignoring that when the assessee has no explanation to offer for the bogus purchases, the same has to be added to the total income. 2. Because on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. M/S NARAIN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES PVT. LTD., KANPUR

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

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

bogus creditors corresponding to the value of assets that had increased by the same amount in round figures. He also observed the grand total of both sides of this tampered balance-sheet did not tally under the head, “source of fund” and, “application of fund”. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the ld. AO had not brought on record

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

bogus. Multiple appeals were filed by both the Revenue and the assessee.", "held": "The Tribunal ruled that interest earned on FDRs kept for security/retention money, even if related to business, is not 'derived from' eligible business and thus not deductible under Section 80IA. The disallowance under Section 14A was held to be attracted only when exempt income is earned

RAJINDER KUMAR,ALLAHABAD ROAD, FAIZABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, FAIZABAD

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.293/Lkw/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajinder Kumar V. Income Tax Officer Mahavir Agricultural Industries, Income Tax Department, Allahabad Road, Faizabad- Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh- 224001. 224001. Pan:Aawpk2983L अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25 11 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 27 11 2025 Pronouncement: O R D E R Per Kul Bharat.: This Appeal, By The Assessee, Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 17.02.2025 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Against Law & Facts Of The Case On The File. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 10,58,720/- Made By The Ao Under Section 69C Of Income Tax Act In Respect Of Purchases Made By The Assessee From M/S. Mideast Integrated Steel Ltd. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A) Gravely Erred In Not Allowing Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard. 4. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Assessment Wrongly Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By The Ao. Page 2 Of 4 5. That The Appellant Begs To Add Or Amend Any Ground Of Appeal Before The Appeal Is Heard & Disposed Off.” 2. Apropos To The Grounds Of Appeal, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee, At The Outset, Contended That The Impugned Order Has Been Passed Without Giving Effective Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. He, Therefore, Prayed That The Matter May Be Restored To The File Of The Ld. Cit(A) For Fresh Adjudication.

69C of Income Tax Act in respect of purchases made by the assessee from M/s. Mideast Integrated Steel Ltd. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) gravely erred in not allowing proper opportunity of being heard. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the assessment wrongly reopened under Section 147 of the Income

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

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

section 37 of the IT Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. AO well as Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.25,52,798/- on account of extra profit on the alleged shortage of stock. (This ground of appeal was not pressed by the assessee). 4. That the order passed by Ld. AO is bad on facts

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

section 37 of the IT Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. AO well as Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.25,52,798/- on account of extra profit on the alleged shortage of stock. (This ground of appeal was not pressed by the assessee). 4. That the order passed by Ld. AO is bad on facts

RAGHAV AGARWAL (HUF),KANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(3), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraraghav Agarwal (Huf) The Income Tax Officer V. 563, Muir Road, Cantt., Ward-1(1)(3) Kanpur-208004. Aayakar Bhawan, 16/69, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Aanhr2365C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06 02 2025 O R D E R

bogus, only roving and fishing enquiry, incomplete, leading nowhere, there being no nexus between the material and the reasons recorded, far less any satisfaction of the AO, the entire proceedings initiated right from recording of reasons, issue of notice u/s 148 and reassessment thereafter is all without jurisdiction, the same be quashed. 3. Because the CIT(A) has failed