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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

bogus purchases as genuine ones after admitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A.” C.O.No.01/Lkw/2025 “1. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts & law not deleting the issue relating to issuance of notice u/s 148 by Assessing Officer not accordance with law and facts. 2. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition

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

bogus purchases as genuine ones after\nadmitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A.”\nC.O.No.01/Lkw/2025\n1.\nBecause the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts & law not\ndeleting the issue relating to issuance of notice u/s 148 by\nAssessing Officer not accordance with law and facts.\n2.\nBecause the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition

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

In the result, appeals vide I

bogus purchases as genuine ones after admitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A.”\n\nC.O.No.01/Lkw/2025\n\n1.\nBecause the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts & law not deleting the issue relating to issuance of notice u/s 148 by Assessing Officer not accordance with law and facts.\n\n2.\nBecause the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining

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

80-IA (1) of the Act are:\na) the 'gross total income' of an assessee should include profits\nand gains;\n") "summary": { "facts": "The appeals concern various assessment years from 2016-17 to 2018-19. The primary issues revolve around the disallowance of interest income claimed as deduction under Section 80IA, the applicability of Section 14A for disallowance of expenses

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)

section 44AB of the Income Tax Act. During the entire financial year, the assessee had not done a single sale / purchase in cash. All the sale purchases were either through banking channels or through sale / purchase adjustment. Furthermore, it was submitted that 7 of the 8 parties from whom purchases had made had confirmed the said purchases. Only

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)

bogus purchases, the assessee was assessed at Rs. 5,80,83,199/-. 3. Aggrieved with the said additions, the assessee went before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that the purchases of all items had been made from M/s DSC Ltd. through sale deeds executed by the said company and the assessee; that deliveries

M/S. MOTOR FAB SALES PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT/ACIT-4, 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)

section 68 of the Act. 7.1 The facts of the case are not in dispute. There was substantial increase in the sales of the assessee during the period of demonetization and it was the contention of the AO that these sales were bogus sales, which had been introduced in the books of account with an aim to bring on record

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)

section 68 of the Act. 7.1 The facts of the case are not in dispute. There was substantial increase in the sales of the assessee during the period of demonetization and it was the contention of the AO that these sales were bogus sales, which had been introduced in the books of account with an aim to bring on record

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

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

80,77,713/- on this account. The Assessing\nOfficer also disallowed certain expenditure on the ground that\nthe same could not be verified. Thus, 25% of such expenditure\nITA No.219/LKW/2020\nPage 3 of 23\nwas disallowed and made addition of Rs.37,55,277/- in this\nregard. Further, the Assessing Officer made addition in respect of\nthe scholarships amounting to Rs.3

SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

80,000/-. The aforesaid investment was made\nby him out of his internal accruals. The AO on examining the details of the\ninvestments made by the assessee noticed that the assessee had received\nfunds from Messrs R.K. Agro Pvt. Ltd., a company in which the assessee\nwas a substantial shareholder. The AO applying the provisions of section

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: -

80,021/- and the deletion of Rs.3,41,592/- 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

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: -

80,021/- and the deletion of Rs.3,41,592/- 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

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

SHILPA KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Shilpa Khandelwal V. The Dy. Cit-2 330, Kalibari Bareilly Bareilly (U.P) Tan/Pan:Arypk5700A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 04 2025 O R D E R

bogus transactions of purchase and sale of shares. 12. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 5. The Ld. A.R., appearing on behalf of the assessee, submitted that the authorities below have erred, both in law as well as on facts in denying the assessee’s claim for exemption under section

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\n115BBE of the Act was not applicable in the present case. Aggrieved, the\nassessee has filed the present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.\n\n(C) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate\nTribunal, the learned Counsel for the assessee filed paper book and also\nfiled compilation of following case laws in support of assessee

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

bogus cash sales claimed to have been done just before the demonetization period was only a device to legitimate the assessee’s unaccounted cash accumulated in the form of SBN (specified bnak notes in the denominations of Rs.1000/- and Rs.500 that were in circulation before announcement of demonetization). We are of the view, having regard to the aforesaid facts

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

80,570/- and Rs 4,20,15,078/- to the total income of the Assessee whereas the Ld. CIT 2. has deleted the addition on the basis that income relating to assessment year 1977-78 to 2008-09 cannot be added to income for assessment year 2009-10. 3. The Ld. A.O. is wrong in objecting to the so-called