SHRI SWATANTRA KUMAR SHUKLA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Swatantra Kumar Shukla, Vs. Dy. Cit-3, Kanpur 61/139, Sita Ram Mohal, Kanpur- 208001 (U.P.) Pan: Acaps5484N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 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)- 1, Kanpur, Passed On 29.07.2019 Wherein The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 29.12.2017 Has Been Dismissed. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That The Ld Cit(A) Was Wrong In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,39,81,850- Made By The Ao Without Any Valid Reason. 2. That The Revenue Was Wrong In Disallowing The Claim Of Long Term Capital Gains U/S 10(38) Of The Act & The Same Is Against Facts & Law. 3. That The Various Case Law Cited By The Revenue In Rejecting The Claim Is Wrong In As Much As The Facts Of The Appellant'S Case Are Distinguishable From The Cited Case Law. 4. That The Revenue Was Wrong In Invoking Section 68 Of The Act & The Same Is Not Justified & Unwarranted. 5. That It Was Wrong On The Part Of Revenue To Invoke Section 68 Of The Act In As Much As Initial Onus On The Assessee To Establish Identity, Credit Capacity Of The Creditor & Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Discharged. 6. That The Finding Of The Ld Ao That 'Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.1 39,81,850/ Claimed By The Assessee Is Held To Have Been Arranged By The Assessee Through

capital gains, holding them to be bogus. While doing so, he also discussed the movement of the script of M/s Jackson Investments Ltd., and raised question marks on the votality displayed in its price. Accordingly, he made an addition of Rs. 1,39,81,850/- on this account and initiated penalty

SHIV ASREY SINGH,KANPUR vs. DY.CIT-2, KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shiv Asrey Singh V. The Dcit-2 Sb-17, Sbi Colony Kanpur Ratanlal Nagar Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aizps6999M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

Capital Gain of Rs.26,95,654/- claimed by the assessee was nothing, but an arrangement by the assessee to introduce unaccounted money in his books through accommodation entries. The AO did not accept the claim of the assessee for exemption under section 10(38) of the Act and treated the same as assessee’s own money introduced by him through

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. SUDHANSHU TRIVEDI, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit V. Sudhanshu Trivedi Lucknow 21/1013, Sector 21 Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ackpt4164G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, D.R. Respondent By: S/Shri Rajat Jain & Akshat Jain, Cas O R D E R

Capital Gains which were claimed as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act by the beneficiaries. The assessee was required to explain the credit entry of Rs.1,36,00,000/- in his Bank account and after considering the submissions made by the assessee, the AO, not being satisfied with the replies furnished by the assessee, held that the assessee

MR. ADITYA KUMAR,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-1(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Y. 2017-18 Mr. Aditya Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), 1, Anora, Amausi, Lucknow Lucknow-226008 Pan Bfapok 7298L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Siddharth Kohli, Advocate Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2024 O R D E R

capital gains ought to be assessed as on 04-10-2016 under the transfer of property Act and case fully be assessed entirely under the heads LTCG applicable in the instant case. Hence the entire assessment and penalty

SAKET MURARKA,SITAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Saket Murarka V. The Income Tax Officer Prop. M/S Murarka Brothers Sitapur Jail Road Sitapur Tan/Pan:Aaypm4558P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 03 2025 O R D E R

Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee:Rs.4,01,822/- 2.1 The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3)/147 of the Act, computing the income of the assessee for the year under consideration as under: Total income declared : Rs.8,06,880/- Addition u/s 50C(1) of the Act : Rs.4,01,822/- Total : Rs.12,08,702/- Rounded

VIMAL KUMAR BANKA,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2)(1), KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Vimal Kumar Banka V. The Ito 5/P/25, Dabauli Ward 1(2)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Afzb1801J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 24.11.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per The Assessing Officer (Ao), The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Sold An Immovable Property, Jointly Held With Mrs Kanchan Talwar, During The Year Under Consideration For A Consideration Of Rs.10,00,000/- & The Value Of The Same As Per The Stamp Valuation Authority Was Rs.23,15,000/-. The Assessing Officer (Ao), Therefore, Reopened The Case Of The Assessee Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’)

capital gain was only to the tune of Rs.17,502/- after giving the effect of indexation of cost. However, the AO worked out the LTCG at Rs.11,88,827/- and added 50% of the same (which came to Rs.5,62,730/-) to the income of the assessee as undisclosed LTCG. The AO completed the assessment under section 147 read with

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.

penalty order. 3.2 BECAUSE mere disallowance of exemption of long-term capital gain of Rs. 20,64,939/-claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act and treating

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

gains fall under clause (a) of section 10(37) of the Act. vi. Appellant never claimed exemption from income tax for transfer of agricultural land, while claiming said land being not a capital asset. Whereas, appellant claimed exemption for the very reason that land transferred is an agricultural land, which is a capital asset. Income tax on transfer of such

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

gains fall under clause (a) of section 10(37) of the Act. vi. Appellant never claimed exemption from income tax for transfer of agricultural land, while claiming said land being not a capital asset. Whereas, appellant claimed exemption for the very reason that land transferred is an agricultural land, which is a capital asset. Income tax on transfer of such

HARI SINGH CHAUHAN,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(5), AAYAKAR BHAWAN

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Hari Singh Chouhan V. The Income Tax Officer 3(5) 1, Naramau Kanpur Kanpur Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Askpc3749A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Srhi Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R

Capital Gain of the assessee Rs.48,85,660/- ITA No.344/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 7 2.1 The AO also initiated penalty

SHRI CHETAN SHARMA,KANPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Hari Singh Chouhan V. The Income Tax Officer 3(5) 1, Naramau Kanpur Kanpur Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Askpc3749A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Srhi Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R

Capital Gain of the assessee Rs.48,85,660/- ITA No.344/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 7 2.1 The AO also initiated penalty

NIRMAL SINGH,AYODHYA vs. ITO WARD-1,, FAIZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria & Sa. No. 07/Lkw/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita. No.83/Lkw/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Nirmal Singh The Income Tax Officer, V. 15/2/16, Janki Ghat, Ayodhya- Ward-1, 224123, Faizabad (Up). Cinema Road, Faizabad- New-224001. Pan:Bdsps4165C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri. Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 24 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10 10 2024 O R D E R

Capital Gain (STCG). The aforesaid additions have been made by the Assessing Officer (“AO”), in respect of transactions in immovable property. The assessee and his wife Mrs Anita Singh purchased an immovable property from Shri Gurinder Pal Singh for consideration of Rs.2,19,40,000/- as against the Stamp Duty S.A. No.07/LKW/2024 Page 4 of 17 Valuation of the property

GOPAL JI MISHRA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-6(5), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Gopal Ji Mishra V. The Income Tax Officer 6(5) K-1218, Ashiana Lucknow - New Kanpur Road, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Akjpm8317M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 03 2025 O R D E R

Capital Gain' was liable to be deleted. 6.3 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances, the Id. Assessing Officer erred in not referring the matter of valuation to the DVO, as per provisions of sub-section (2) of section 50C and in straight away adopting stamp value of Rs.33,52,500/- as the sale consideration, consequently

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

capital gain and therefore he had reason to believe that income to the tune of Rs. 3,31,15,313.49 had escaped assessment for the assessment year 2000-01. In Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. v. CIT [2008] 175 Taxman 262 (Delhi) it was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court as under: 19. Examining the proviso [set out above

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

capital gain and therefore he had reason to believe that income to the tune of Rs. 3,31,15,313.49 had escaped assessment for the assessment year 2000-01. In Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. v. CIT [2008] 175 Taxman 262 (Delhi) it was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court as under: 19. Examining the proviso [set out above

NETPLAST PVT.LTD.,KANPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(3)(1), KANPUR

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

gain would be\npaid.\nSince the assessee could not substantiate the alleged capital\nexpenditure of Rs.84,00,000/- claimed to have been made by\nShri Arpit Agarwal in the land, which is lying in the books of the\nassessee by producing/furnishing reliable documentary\nevidences. Thus, the assessee failed to prove genuineness of the\ntransaction. It is on record that during

RAJEEV GUPTA S/O LH RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA,KANPUR vs. ITO-3(3), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2012-13 Rajeev Gupta V. The Income Tax Officer 3(3) S/O/Legal Heir Of Late Kanpur Ramesh Chandra Gupta 133/118, Transport Nagar Kanpur Tan/Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rajeev Gupta (Assessee) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2024 O R D E R

capital gain. 2.1 The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, vide order

RAJENDRA KUMAR LAXMI DEVI,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(2)(3), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Rajendra Kumar Laxmi Devi V. The Income Tax Officer 112/292, Swaroop Nagar, Ward-1(2)(3) Kanpur-208002. Aayakar Bhawan, 16/69, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Aachr4041N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 29 07 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31 07 2025 O R D E R

penalty imposed under section 271AAC(1) is bad in law and be deleted. 5. Because the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee has declared his income arising from Long Term Capital Gain

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Gain detail 16.03.2024 65 General 20-03-2024 Portal blocked for reply Draft Order Sent to Range Head for approval (as per paper book of Revenue of AY 2016-17) 21-03-2024 Approval Granted for Order (as per paper book of Revenue u/s 147/143(3) of AY 2016-17) 26-03-2024 Assessment Order u/s 147/144 Note