SMT. SABREEN,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed and Stay Application is dismissed as infructuous

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

capital gain on the scrip M/s Gold Line International Finvest Ltd. In I.T.A. No. 130 and 131 similar claim was made on scrip of M/s Eastern Bio Organic Food Processing Ltd. and on scrip of Rander Corporation Ltd. The authorities below had not allowed claim of the assessee on the basis of same investigation report on the basis of which

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 on the scrip Twenty First Century Private Limited. The Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings show caused the assessees as to why the claim of their exempt income be not rejected. The Assessing Officer has relied on the statements of Shri Pradeep Kumar Garg, Anil Kumar Khemka, Abhiset Basu, Sajendra Mookim, Deepak Kumar Choudhary etc. to dislodge the claim

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 on the scrip Twenty First Century Private Limited. The Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings show caused the assessees as to why the claim of their exempt income be not rejected. The Assessing Officer has relied on the statements of Shri Pradeep Kumar Garg, Anil Kumar Khemka, Abhiset Basu, Sajendra Mookim, Deepak Kumar Choudhary etc. to dislodge the claim

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

Capital Gain on the scrip Twenty First Century Private Limited. The Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings show caused the assessees as to why the claim of their exempt income be not rejected. The Assessing Officer has relied on the statements of Shri Pradeep Kumar Garg, Anil Kumar Khemka, Abhiset Basu, Sajendra Mookim, Deepak Kumar Choudhary etc. to dislodge the claim

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 on the scrip Twenty First Century Private Limited. The Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings show caused the assessees as to why the claim of their exempt income be not rejected. The Assessing Officer has relied on the statements of Shri Pradeep Kumar Garg, Anil Kumar Khemka, Abhiset Basu, Sajendra Mookim, Deepak Kumar Choudhary etc. to dislodge the claim

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 on the scrip Twenty First Century Private Limited. The Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings show caused the assessees as to why the claim of their exempt income be not rejected. The Assessing Officer has relied on the statements of Shri Pradeep Kumar Garg, Anil Kumar Khemka, Abhiset Basu, Sajendra Mookim, Deepak Kumar Choudhary etc. to dislodge the claim

SHRI UMA SHANKER DHANDHANIA,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(5), KANPUR

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

capital gain on the scrip M/s Gold Line International Finvest Ltd. In I.T.A. No. 130 and 131 similar claim was made on scrip of M/s Eastern Bio Organic Food Processing Ltd. and on scrip of Rander Corporation Ltd. The authorities below had not allowed claim of the assessee on the basis of same investigation report on the basis of which

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

Section 68 of the Act. 11)That, the Appellant craves leave to alter, amend, add or delete one or all the Grounds of appeals mentioned above.” Page 3 of 31 (B). In this case, assessment order dated 27.03.2023 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee

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)

19 7.0 We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. We have also carefully perused the assessment orders as well as the impugned orders. A reading of all the three assessment orders would make it amply clear that in all the three cases before us, the issue of Long Term Capital Gains was first

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)

19 7.0 We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. We have also carefully perused the assessment orders as well as the impugned orders. A reading of all the three assessment orders would make it amply clear that in all the three cases before us, the issue of Long Term Capital Gains was first

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)

19 7.0 We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. We have also carefully perused the assessment orders as well as the impugned orders. A reading of all the three assessment orders would make it amply clear that in all the three cases before us, the issue of Long Term Capital Gains was first

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

Capital Gain as detailed earlier; and the Assessing Officer has also categorically confirmed this is in the aforesaid office note referred to paragraph no. 6.2 of the impugned order. Therefore, it is held that the order of the Ld. PCIT holding the assessment order dated 30.12.2016 to be erroneous and prejudicial to interests of Revenue, is not supported by credible

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

19 ITR (Trib) 746 (Mumbai)\nrecord in detail, made various disallowances, assessment order so\npassed by him could not be regarded as erroneous and prejudicial to\ninterest of revenue and, therefore, invocation of jurisdiction under section\n263 by Commissioner in such a case could not be The assessee was\nengaged in the business upheld-Held, yes (in favour of assessee

SHIMLA PROPERTIES,LUCKNOW vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 Shimla Properties V. The Pcit 30C, Datiya House Lucknow Khursheed Bagh Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ablfs9732M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16 08 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 09 2022 O R D E R

capital gain. 12. After considering the replies dated 20.1.2022 (APB-9-10) and 7.2.2022 (APB-11) filed by the assessee, the ld. PCIT passed the impugned order, setting aside the order dated 27.12.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)/147 of the I.T. Act and directed him to make fresh assessment on making proper enquiry and verification

GENUS POWER INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITTED,NOIDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTERAL), LUCKNOW

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

Capital Gain. Query no.\n8 is being replied in query no. 3 above. Query no. 9 and 7 are similar\nwhich is being replied in query no. 7 above. In response to your query no.\n10, sir, it is stated that according to the size of the company as well as in\ncomparison of earlier years, the same are quite

HARCHARAN SINGH,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(5), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.201/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 Harcharan Singh V. Ito-2(5) 118/208, Kaushalpuri, Kanpur- Kanpur 208012. Pan:Anxps2189N अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: None प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Deepak Yadav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10 06 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 06 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

section 50C were not applicable to the same (at the time of sale); 5. the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in computing/upholding the computation of Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.1,56,21,620/- by treating the sale plots of land as sale of capital asset simpliciter (instead of treating the same as stock-in-trade

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 Gain on sale of equity shares as non-genuine. However, on appeal, the Ld. First Appellate Authority, vide order dated 31.05.2024, deleted the addition by holding that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 26.07.2022 was barred by limitation as per the first proviso to section 149 of the Act. The assessment order passed under section

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

section (1); or (iie) the amount representing,— I.T.A. No.393/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2016-17 19 (A) notional gain on transfer of a capital