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

Capital Gain in shares, is defined by the gains in value of shares of a company listed on a stock exchange that are held by assessee for more than a year. As per the provisions of section 10(38

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. MOHIT ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gain as being exempt under section 10(38) of the Act was not a genuine claim and that the capital

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gain as being exempt under section 10(38) of the Act was not a genuine claim and that the capital

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gain as being exempt under section 10(38) of the Act was not a genuine claim and that the capital

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 u/s 10(38) of the Act and the same is against facts and 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), KANPUR vs. SHRI ARVIND KUMAR GUPTA, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is held to be allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 10(38) for long term capital gain to the tune of Rs.59,21,368/- arising out of transfer of shares

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

MOHAMMED JUNED SIDDIQUI,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Mohammed Juned Siddiqui, Vs. Dcit/Acit-1, C-84/2, Sarvodaya Nagar, Indira Lucknow New Nagar, Lucknow-226016 Pan: Aqnps6188G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Samrat Chandra Ca & Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 20.11.2024, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao Dated 30.12.2018, Passed Under Section 143(3). The Grounds Of Appeal In Both The Appeals Are As Under: - “1. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed Being Illegal. 2. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition Of Rs.11,38,70,742/- Under The Head Capital Gain, Which Was Exempt U/S 10(37) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Not Allowing The Benefit Of Provision Of Rfctlarr Act, 2013. 3. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of Rs. 11,38,70,742/- Only On The Basis Of Roving Enquiries Without Providing An Opportunity Of Being Heard. 4. Because Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of 6,98,27,344/- Under The Head Capital Gains Being Amount

38,70,742/- only on the basis of roving enquiries without providing an opportunity of being heard. 4. Because without considering the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of 6,98,27,344/- under the head Capital Gains being amount 1 A.Y. 2016-17 Mohammed Juned Siddiqui received by the assessee

DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. PRAYAGRAJ POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD.,, NOIDA

In the result, ground no. 1 of appeal is dismissed and ground no

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

10 (other than the provisions contained in clause (38) thereof) or section 11 or section 12 apply; or (fa) the amount or amounts of expenditure relatable to income, being share of the assessee in the income of an association of persons or body of individuals, on which no income-tax is payable in accordance with the provisions of section

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.

capital gains for exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to show

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

SHRI SUBODH AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 10(38) of the Act, by the assessee stood supported by a large number of case laws which are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, the view taken by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) is totally erroneous and untenable both in facts as well as in law. 05. Because the adverse inference drawn

SHRI SUBODH AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 10(38) of the Act, by the assessee stood supported by a large number of case laws which are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, the view taken by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) is totally erroneous and untenable both in facts as well as in law. 05. Because the adverse inference drawn

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

capital gain under section 10(38) shown by assessee on sale of shares of said company as unexplained credit under

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

capital gain under section 10(38) shown by assessee on sale of shares of said company as unexplained credit under

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

capital gain under section 10(38) shown by assessee on sale of shares of said company as unexplained credit under

SMT. MANJU SINGH,KANPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2), KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Manju Singh V. The Ito L-12, Gsvm Medical College Ward 3(2) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aebps3395D (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 12.10.2021, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Engaged In Trading Of Shares, Securities & Mutual Funds. The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 11.09.2015, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3,05,350/-. In The Computation Of Income, The Assessee Had Claimed Rs.55,99,694/- As Exempt Income Under Section 10(38) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) On Sale Of Mutual Funds. However, As Per The Assessing Officer (Ao), The Assessee Had Earned Exempt Income Of Rs.50,81,234/- On Sale Of Mutual Funds And, Accordingly, The Assessee Had Claimed Excess

10(38) of the Act, to the income of the assessee under section 68 of the Act. In the computation of income, the assessee had also debited an amount of Rs.3,94,724/- as interest on delayed payment from purchase cost of shares while calculating the Short Term Capital Gain

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

10. The above section comes into play only in case where any sum credited in the books of account and not shown as income. As the assessee has received the donations with the specific direction for corpus, the assessee has credited such donations as corpus fund u/s 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961. As submitted herein above