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

section of the IT Act. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Udit Narain Agarwal vide judgment and order dated 12.12.2012 in ITA 560 of 2009 wherein their lordships after enumerating various material and information as had been placed on record by the assesses with regard to one such penny stock transaction, has further observed

SHRI KINGSHUK GHOSHAL,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-6(5), LUCKNOW

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Kinghshuk Ghoshal V. The Ito 6(5) E-402, Halwasiya Utsav Enclave Lucknow Opposite Hal, Faizabad Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Affpg3258L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 26.12.2017, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Lucknow-3 (Ld. Cit(A)) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.11.2012, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,05,233/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noticed That The Assessee Was Earning Interest Income From Saving Bank Deposits & Fdrs & That The Assessee Had Claimed Exemption Of Rs.71,54,619/- Under Section 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). During The

Capital Gain : Rs.16,75,288/- Addition of interest income : Rs.1,37,106/- Gross total income : Rs.19,17,627/- Deduction u/s. 80E of the Act : Rs.22,221/- Net Taxable Income (rounded off) : Rs.18,95,410/- 2.2 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271

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

section of the IT Act. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Udit Narain Agarwal vide judgment and order dated 12.12.2012 in ITA 560 of 2009 wherein their lordships after enumerating various material and information as had been placed on record by the assesses with regard to one such penny stock transaction, has further observed

TANEJA RICE & DALL MILLS,KANPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Ys. 2003-04

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. BECAUSE on a due consideration of chronology of relevant dates and events, as culled out from the orders passed by the authorities below, and given hereinafter: SI. Date Events No. (i) 17.02.2006 A query was raised by "ITO-2(4), Kanpur, a different Income-tax Authority than the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction

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 proceedings under section 271

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

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.

section 271(1)(c) which had been kept in abeyance prior to the same. The assessee submitted that it had not concealed any particulars of income or furnished any inaccurate particulars and the addition had only been made by treating the long term capital gains

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 proceedings under section 271

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 proceedings under section 271

KOBSAI HOSPITALLITIES PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No.290/LKW/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

gain by not filing the appeal in time, the CIT(A), NFAC, was not justified in not condoning the delay, the order passed by the CIT(A), NFAC, be set aside. 03. Because the entire proceedings-initiated u/s.148 are devoid of material or reasons, there being no reason to believe, the ground on which the reopening has been initiated

KOBSAI HOSPITALITIES PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No.290/LKW/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

gain by not filing the appeal in time, the CIT(A), NFAC, was not justified in not condoning the delay, the order passed by the CIT(A), NFAC, be set aside. 03. Because the entire proceedings-initiated u/s.148 are devoid of material or reasons, there being no reason to believe, the ground on which the reopening has been initiated

RAJEEV GUPTA L/H 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 Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Rajeev Gupta V. The Income Tax Officer 3(3) Legal Heir Of Late Ramesh Kanpur Chandra Gupta 133/118, Transport Nagar Kanpur Nagar Tan/Pan:Aiypg8690G (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 as arising, by adopting Rs.45,98,550/- as sale consideration, had escaped assessment for the year under consideration. The AO, accordingly, after recording the reasons, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act and issued notice under section 148 of the Act to the assessee, requiring the assessee to furnish the return of income for the year under