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

section 260- A of the Act, 1961. 5. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.” I.T.A. No.61 to 65/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2012-13 31 4.10 We further find that the SLP filed by the Revenue has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.08.2021. 4.11 In the present cases, on the one hand

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

section 260- A of the Act, 1961. 5. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.” I.T.A. No.61 to 65/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2012-13 31 4.10 We further find that the SLP filed by the Revenue has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.08.2021. 4.11 In the present cases, on the one hand

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

section 260- A of the Act, 1961. 5. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.” I.T.A. No.61 to 65/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2012-13 31 4.10 We further find that the SLP filed by the Revenue has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.08.2021. 4.11 In the present cases, on the one hand

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

section 260- A of the Act, 1961. 5. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.” I.T.A. No.61 to 65/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2012-13 31 4.10 We further find that the SLP filed by the Revenue has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.08.2021. 4.11 In the present cases, on the one hand

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

section 260- A of the Act, 1961. 5. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.” I.T.A. No.61 to 65/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2012-13 31 4.10 We further find that the SLP filed by the Revenue has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.08.2021. 4.11 In the present cases, on the one hand

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

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

section 10(38)was liable to be allowed; l) The AO failed to appreciate that the amount received on sale of shares is neither sale nor an advance; m) The amount received, being properly explained, neither being unexplained nor undisclosed; the appellant's claim for exemption u/s 10(38) be allowed. 5. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts

AYYUB JAFRI,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW

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

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

section 54F. The ld. AO pointed out to the assessee that additional documents were required to examine the claim such as sale / purchase deeds, documents in support of claimed costs of improvement, evidence of deposit of sale consideration into capital gain accounts, bills and vouchers pertaining to cost of house constructed by you, details of parties to whom payments were

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

33,992/- Difference :Rs.8,03,645/- ½ share of the assessee :Rs.4,01,822/- Long Term Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee:Rs.4,01,822/- 2.1 The AO completed the assessment under section

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

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR vs. COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-5, Kanpur 84/105, Kailash Motors Building, G.T. Road, Afim Kothi, Kanpur-208003 Pan: Aaccc4267E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (A)- 2, Kanpur Dated 25.09.2017, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y. 2006-07 On 23.12.2008. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 5,32,366/- U/S 14A Without Taken Into Consideration That The Expenditure Incurred In Relation To Exempt Income. 02. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 99,56,258/-Without Appreciating That The Provisions Of Sec. 50C Have Been Invoked By The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Stamp Valuation Of The Property. The Assessee Has Not Claimed Before The Assessing Office To Make The Reference To The Valuation Officer U/S 55A Of It Act, 1961. 3 That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 3,20,90,164/- On Account Of Loss Claimed On Sale Of Shares Without Appreciating That The Transaction As Claimed Were Sham & Was Incorporated Only To Evade The Capital Gain Earned On The Sale Of Properties. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Ignoring The Facts Noted By The Assessing Officer Regarding The Transaction Of Sale Of Shares.

33,762/- v. Misc. expenses Rs. 1,75,498/- vi. Addition on account of late deposit of ESI under section 2(24)(X) r.w.s. 36(i)(va) Rs. 7,771/- vii. Addition under section 14A Rs. 5,32,366/- Thus, addition of this amount was added to the net profit of Rs. 4,87,81,895/- that had been declared

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

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

33,244/-) as against returned loss of Rs.233,73,28,994/-. 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

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

33,840 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 18-19 31/12/2019 5,11,17,229 31/01/2022 Partly allowed (A.1) The grounds raised by the assessees in these appeals are as under: I.T.A. No.41/Lkw/2022 “1. That the notice issued and assessment completed under section 153A of the act is invalid and unlawful being without jurisdiction. 2. That the learned assessing officer has erred

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

33,840 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 18-19 31/12/2019 5,11,17,229 31/01/2022 Partly allowed (A.1) The grounds raised by the assessees in these appeals are as under: I.T.A. No.41/Lkw/2022 “1. That the notice issued and assessment completed under section 153A of the act is invalid and unlawful being without jurisdiction. 2. That the learned assessing officer has erred

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

33,840 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 18-19 31/12/2019 5,11,17,229 31/01/2022 Partly allowed (A.1) The grounds raised by the assessees in these appeals are as under: I.T.A. No.41/Lkw/2022 “1. That the notice issued and assessment completed under section 153A of the act is invalid and unlawful being without jurisdiction. 2. That the learned assessing officer has erred

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

capital gains and Rs.2,75,488/- being difference in Valuation Report of the District Valuation Officer on immovable property. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the ld. First Appellate Authority. However, the appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority came to be dismissed. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal, challenging the dismissal of its appeal

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

capital gains and Rs.2,75,488/- being difference in Valuation Report of the District Valuation Officer on immovable property. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the ld. First Appellate Authority. However, the appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority came to be dismissed. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal, challenging the dismissal of its appeal