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

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

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

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

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

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 gains on the shares sold. Also, on perusal of the order passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the I.Tax Act, 1961, and plain reading of the of Para 2 at Page 1 of the order it is evident that the whole proceedings were initiated on the behest of the Assessing Officer. “It has been bought to the notice

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

Section 263 of the Act which came\ninto effect from 01/06/2015 onwards. However, the same is used by him\nonly in the revision order passed u/s.263 of the Act. This goes to prove\nthat the assessee was never given an opportunity to address the\napplicability of provisions of Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act\nduring the course

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

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

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

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

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

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

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