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

Capital Gain [hereinafter referred to as ‘LTCG’] under Section 10(38) of the Act. He inter alia concluded that the assessee had adopted a colorable device of LTCG to avoid tax and accordingly framed the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act at the total income of Rs. 1,09,12,060/-, making an addition

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

Capital Gain [hereinafter referred to as ‘LTCG’] under Section 10(38) of the Act. He inter alia concluded that the assessee had adopted a colorable device of LTCG to avoid tax and accordingly framed the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act at the total income of Rs. 1,09,12,060/-, making an addition

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

Capital Gain [hereinafter referred to as ‘LTCG’] under Section 10(38) of the Act. He inter alia concluded that the assessee had adopted a colorable device of LTCG to avoid tax and accordingly framed the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act at the total income of Rs. 1,09,12,060/-, making an addition

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

Capital Gain [hereinafter referred to as ‘LTCG’] under Section 10(38) of the Act. He inter alia concluded that the assessee had adopted a colorable device of LTCG to avoid tax and accordingly framed the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act at the total income of Rs. 1,09,12,060/-, making an addition

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

10(38) of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,93,599/- towards Long Term Capital Gain was wrong in the facts and circumstances of the case. He submitted that the assessee purchased the stock of M/s. Ashikca CR during the period of 09.12.2011 to 05.01.2012, for a total amount of Rs.1,54,009.75/-, which were sold during the period

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

In the result, both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

10,480/- after approval of Range Head granted vide his office letter bearing F. No. JCIT(CR)/KNP/Approval under section 153D/2016-17/1533 dated 30.12.2016. Vide separate orders, each dated 26.03.2019, passed under section 263 of the Act, the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income (“PCIT” for short) set aside the aforesaid assessment orders for Assessment Year 2014-15 and Assessment Year

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

29,103/-. Issue No. 4 – AY 2015-16 Addition u/s 68 source of introduction of Capital in Firm M/s Alok Construction Rs. 34,25,339/- That AO made addition of Rs. 34,25,339/- amount added in capital a/c inadvertently and bank balance was also increased by Rs. 34,25,339/- being contra entry on debit side. The said mistake

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

29,103/-. Issue No. 4 – AY 2015-16 Addition u/s 68 source of introduction of Capital in Firm M/s Alok Construction Rs. 34,25,339/- That AO made addition of Rs. 34,25,339/- amount added in capital a/c inadvertently and bank balance was also increased by Rs. 34,25,339/- being contra entry on debit side. The said mistake

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

29,103/-. Issue No. 4 – AY 2015-16 Addition u/s 68 source of introduction of Capital in Firm M/s Alok Construction Rs. 34,25,339/- That AO made addition of Rs. 34,25,339/- amount added in capital a/c inadvertently and bank balance was also increased by Rs. 34,25,339/- being contra entry on debit side. The said mistake

M/S STANDARD FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT LTD,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

29,750 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 15-16 29/12/2019 96,13,740 31/12/2022 Partly allowed Kamal Kant Verma 15-16 30/12/2019 68,45,160 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 16-17 30/12/2019 1,00,02,230 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 17-18 30/12/2019 92,76,090 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 18-19 31/12/2019 3,72,59,560 31/01/2022 Partly allowed Shri

SACHIN VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

29,750 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 15-16 29/12/2019 96,13,740 31/12/2022 Partly allowed Kamal Kant Verma 15-16 30/12/2019 68,45,160 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 16-17 30/12/2019 1,00,02,230 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 17-18 30/12/2019 92,76,090 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 18-19 31/12/2019 3,72,59,560 31/01/2022 Partly allowed Shri

KAMAL KANT VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

29,750 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 15-16 29/12/2019 96,13,740 31/12/2022 Partly allowed Kamal Kant Verma 15-16 30/12/2019 68,45,160 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 16-17 30/12/2019 1,00,02,230 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 17-18 30/12/2019 92,76,090 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 18-19 31/12/2019 3,72,59,560 31/01/2022 Partly allowed Shri

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

29-3-2004 under section 148 based on the recorded reasons as supplied to the petitioner as well as the consequent order dated 2-3- 2005 are without jurisdiction as no action under section 147 could be taken beyond the four year period in the circumstances narrated above. Thus it can be seen from the above decision

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

29-3-2004 under section 148 based on the recorded reasons as supplied to the petitioner as well as the consequent order dated 2-3- 2005 are without jurisdiction as no action under section 147 could be taken beyond the four year period in the circumstances narrated above. Thus it can be seen from the above decision

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

10 SOT 736 (Delhi)\nMere lack of inquiry by Assessing Officer is not sufficient for revision\nunder section 263.\nAsstt. Order cannot be held to be erroneous, if in opinion of the CIT order\nshould have been more elaborate or that further enquiry should have\nbeen made.\nWhether what is proper,\nrequisite and desired enquiries in relation to various matters

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

29-02-2008 extracted above clearly indicate that the first proviso to Section 2 (15) as extracted above was introduced by the Finance (No.2)Act, 2009 with effect from 01-04-2009 to exclude entities carrying on regular trade, commerce or business or providing services in relation to any trade, commerce or business and earning incomes from claiming

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

29-02-2008 extracted above clearly indicate that the first proviso to Section 2 (15) as extracted above was introduced by the Finance (No.2)Act, 2009 with effect from 01-04-2009 to exclude entities carrying on regular trade, commerce or business or providing services in relation to any trade, commerce or business and earning incomes from claiming

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

29-02-2008 extracted above clearly indicate that the first proviso to Section 2 (15) as extracted above was introduced by the Finance (No.2)Act, 2009 with effect from 01-04-2009 to exclude entities carrying on regular trade, commerce or business or providing services in relation to any trade, commerce or business and earning incomes from claiming