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

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

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

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

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 [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

Capital Gain. It is common in stock market that the price of some shares may rise high. An adverse view against an assessee cannot be taken merely because the price of a share in which the assessee invested, showed extraordinary price rise; unless there are materials to show that there was foul play behind the rise in price

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

section 147, the notice issued u/s.148 and the reassessment framed thereafter is all without jurisdiction, the order passed u/s 147/143(3) as upheld by the CIT(A) be quashed. 2. Because there being no income accrued during the year under consideration, and the entire capital gains having been accrued in A.Y. 2011-12 consequently there being no escapement of income

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 Gains and Other Sources, as declared by the assessee. The ld. PCIT exercised the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the I.T. Act on those issues which were dealt with by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment order passed on 7.5.2013, and which issues did not form the subject-matter of the reassessment. This is beyond the period

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BAREILLY vs. MS SHREE BHAWANI MILLS, SHAHJAHANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed while the Cross

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S Shree Bhawani Mills, Tax, Circle-1, Bareilly Gandhi Ganj, Shahjahanpur, U.P. Pan:Aadfs8573M (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.15/Lkw/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 M/S Shree Bhawani Mills, Gandhi Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Ganj, Shahjahanpur, U.P. Income Tax, Circle-1, Bareilly Pan:Aadfs8573M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act On 7.09.2023 Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao On 30.03.2022 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:-

section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1 & CO No.15/LKW/2024 M/s Shree Bhawani Mills “The ld. CIT has erred in; (i). Law and on facts of the case by giving relief of Rs.5,28,97,000/- by deleting the addition of long term capital gain

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

28,11.2021 and once again vide letter no.\nITBA/COM/F/17/2021-22/1037785402(1) on dt.14.12.2021 in response\nto these notices the Assessee Company has already submitted its reply on\n11.12.2021 and on 14.12.2024 respectively. We are herewith enclosing\nthat reply for your kind consideration.\n\nIn view of above submissions and documents, Sir, it is evident that the Ld.\nAssessing Officer has allowed

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

Section 115BBE thus confusing the entire transaction which in facts was simply a clear cut case of 'Capital Gains and ought to has been assessed u/s 45 of the Act thus the observation and conclusion drawn in Para 12 of the assessment order and arbitrary, illegal and based upon presumption and surmises ignoring the facts that the sale deeds executed

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year:2014-15 Rakesh Kumar Gupta V. The Income Tax Officer House No.51, Kaharan Ward 2(3) Nawabganj, Bareilly (U.P) Bareilly Tan/Pan:Aaupg6815 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

section 131 of the Act issued to the wife of the assessee, the AO computed the Long Term Capital Gain of the assessee for the year under consideration as under: Full value of consideration u/s. 50C of the Act : 84,23,000/- Less: Indexed cost of acquisition 32,50,000/632X939 : 48,28

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

28,994/-. Relevant portion of the assessment order is reproduced as under: I.T.A. No.393/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2016-17 3 I.T.A. No.393/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2016-17 4 I.T.A. No.393/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2016-17 5 I.T.A. No.393/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2016-17 6 I.T.A. No.393/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2016-17 7 I.T.A. No.393/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2016-17 8 (B.1) In the aforesaid assessment order

ARUN KUMAR MAURYA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

capital gains would not be assessable at the hands of the firm, yet for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph that in the absence of notice under Section 143(2) reassessment could not be held to be validly made . Thus, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order of the Tribunal.” (E.1.5) In the case of Pr. Commissioner

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 receipt. Accordingly, section 115BBE is not applicable on the assessee. On the basis of the above submissions, it is very clear that the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred both on the facts as well as in law in treating the corpus donation as income u/s 2(24) and making the addition u/s 68 . The order passed is not tenable

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 receipt. Accordingly, section 115BBE is not applicable on the assessee. On the basis of the above submissions, it is very clear that the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred both on the facts as well as in law in treating the corpus donation as income u/s 2(24) and making the addition u/s 68 . The order passed is not tenable

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, LUCKNOW vs. MS. ZUBEIDA SHAHANSHAH, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2014-15

capital gain to the tune of Rs.2,33,75,744/- which arose on account of sale of property situated at 13, Jopling Road, Lucknow for a sale consideration of Rs.4,05,00,000/-. Learned A. R. submitted that assessee had originally entered into a builder agreement on 10/10/2005 whereby the assessee agreed to transfer a part of its property

AVNEEDRA SINGH RATHORE,KANPUR vs. ITO-1(1), KANPUR, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

section 151(2) of the Income Tax Act from the JCIT, the entire assessment are void-abinito and be quashed. 2. Because there being no reason to believe nor there being any material assessment proceeding initiated are bad in law and be quashed. 3. Because the AO as well as CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact