INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR vs. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

unexplained, ignoring the fact that purchase of such shares was not doubted by the A.O. ?" However, in view of the finding recorded by the assessing officer for addition to be made under section 68 of the Act without allowing any deduction in respect of cost of acquisition of the shares, it necessarily flows from such finding that the assessing officer

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

unexplained investment AY 2012-13.” (B.2) Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT started proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. Vide notice dated 27.02.2020, the Ld. PCIT was of the view that the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee’s claim for capital gain on sale of shares of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd on face value, without independent inquiry. The Ld. PCIT

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

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

invested, public undertakings or utilities may\neven have to run at losses, if need be and even a minimal return may\nnot*be assured. In the case of less vital, but still basic commodities, they\nmay be required to cater to needs with a minimum profit margin for\nthemselves. But given a favourable area of operation, "commercial profits'\nneed

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

investing in business for increasing the capital of Assessee." falls flat when we see that out of Rs.1,68,61,600/- taken during the year Rs.1,65,61,600/- was paid back and there is an opening balance of Rs.8,25,000/- in the account of Mr. Akhil Agarwal. Unsecured Loan as on 31.03.2013 was Rs.78,88,048/-, while

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), KANPUR vs. SHRI RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

unexplained, ignoring the fact that purchase of such shares was not doubted by the A.O. ?" However, in view of the finding recorded by the assessing officer for addition to be made under section 68 of the Act without allowing any deduction in respect of cost of acquisition of the shares, it necessarily flows from such finding that the assessing officer

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

purchase and the sales. Audit report u/s 44AB, the\nfinancial statements furnished in paper book clearly shows the\nreduction of stock position and matching with the sales which\ngoes to say that the cash generated represent the sales. The\nassessee has furnished the trading Account, P& L account in\npage No........of paper book and we observe that the reduction

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

In the result, appeals vide I

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 of computing the total income\nunder this chapter, no deduction shall be allowed

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

invested in the\ninvestment which has generated the \"tax exempt dividend income\"\nCIT Vs. Gujrat Power Corporation Ltd. [2013] 352 ITR 583 (Gujarat)- It\nis held if the borrowed funds have not been diverted to earn tax free\nincome provisions section 14A would not apply\nThe Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs GVK Project and Technical\nServices

MS. GUNJAN AGARWAL,BARABANKI. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-5(4), BARABANKI.

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Ys. 2012-13 Ms. Gunjan Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer-5(4), Fatehpur, Barabanki. Barabanki- 225001 (U.P.). Pan Aaspa 4237D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Shubham Rastogi, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit( Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/02/2024 O R D E R

bogus and that the same was unexplained cash credit in terms of Section 68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the ld. First Appellate Authority challenging the addition. However, the assessee was given as many as eight opportunities but there was no representation or submission made by the assessee before the NFAC and, therefore, the appeal

MAHESH MITTAL,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-5, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshramahesh Mittal V. Acit, Range-5 1/16, Vinay Khand Gomti Income Tax Office Ashok Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Acqpm4459B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Akshay Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

bogus nature...... The reasoning given s contrary to human probabilities for in the normal course of conduct, no one will take Investment of such huge amounts without being concerned about the return and safety of such investment". 8.15 Reliance is also placed on judgment of Hon'ble ITAT Pune in case of Raj Kumar B Agarwal vs. DCIT

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

unexplained u/s 69A of the Act when the transaction has been explained by complete documentary evidence and accordingly shown u/s 10(38) of the Act being gain from sale of securities transaction and primary onus casted upon the appellant has been discharged. 9. That the ld. CIT(A) and ld. Assessing Officer has failed to establish any nexus or material

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

unexplained u/s 69A of the Act when the transaction has been explained by complete documentary evidence and accordingly shown u/s 10(38) of the Act being gain from sale of securities transaction and primary onus casted upon the appellant has been discharged. 9. That the ld. CIT(A) and ld. Assessing Officer has failed to establish any nexus or material

ZAIN ALAM,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

unexplained u/s 69A of the Act when the transaction has been explained by complete documentary evidence and accordingly shown u/s 10(38) of the Act being gain from sale of securities transaction and primary onus casted upon the appellant has been discharged. 9. That the ld. CIT(A) and ld. Assessing Officer has failed to establish any nexus or material

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

unexplained u/s 69A of the Act when the transaction has been explained by complete documentary evidence and accordingly shown u/s 10(38) of the Act being gain from sale of securities transaction and primary onus casted upon the appellant has been discharged. 9. That the ld. CIT(A) and ld. Assessing Officer has failed to establish any nexus or material

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

unexplained u/s 69A of the Act when the transaction has been explained by complete documentary evidence and accordingly shown u/s 10(38) of the Act being gain from sale of securities transaction and primary onus casted upon the appellant has been discharged. 9. That the ld. CIT(A) and ld. Assessing Officer has failed to establish any nexus or material

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. M/S. HABIB TANNERY PRIVATE LIMITED, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S Habib Tannery Pvt. Ltd. Tax-6 15-B, 150 Ft. Road Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aach4129E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri H. S. Usmani, Cit (Dr) O R D E R

investments made by the assessee- company in immovable properties, were found to have been recorded, on the basis of which, statement of Shri Aslam Saeed, Director of the assessee-company was recorded. In the statement recorded under section 131 of the Act on 18.02.2015 and 11.03.2015, Shri Saeed Ahmad voluntarily surrendered an additional income of Rs.1,00,00,000/-, which

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

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

purchase cost of fixed assets and application\nof income. However, he thereafter allowed a deduction of Rs.1,55, 15,994/-, being\nthe depreciation on the same. The ld. AO also observed that the assessee had\ndeposited cash amounting to Rs.5,59,55,800/- in its various bank accounts during\nthe demonetization period. He asked the assessee to furnish copies

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

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

unexplained and added the same back under section 68 of the Act. Finally, noticing that the assessee had claimed an aggregate expenditure of Rs.67,71,75,436/- (excluding depreciation), as expenses in its income and expenditure account, the ld. AO asked the assessee to furnish copies of bills and vouchers related to such expenses, but the assessee furnished only

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

purchases which has been accepted in earlier years, moreover, when no defect or discrepancy has been found in Sales against purchases/manufacturing in any year of assessment completed as the same has been accepted. ITA. No.139/LKW/2022 Page 8 of 158 15. The ld.AO has failed to conduct inquiry as per the procedure laid down in the Act but has made spot