SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains - Chargeable\nas (Business income v. capital gains: share dealing) Assessment year\n2011-12 Assessing Officer made enquiry in respect of sale of shares and\nloss incurred by assessee on sale of such shares was allowed to be set\noff against profit on sale of shares, it was not a case

SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

capital gains arising before the 1st day of\nApril, 1946, or after the 32st day of March 1948, and before the 1st day of\nApril, 1956. Explanation 2, - The expression “accumulated profits" in sub-\nclause (a), (b), (d) and (e), shall include all profits of the company up to the\ndate of distribution or payment referred to in those

VIJAY PAL SINGH,HARDOI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section (u/s.) 147 r.w.s. 144 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’), whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.1,99,26,867/- as against returned income of Rs.3,34,590/-. (B) In the aforesaid assessment order, an addition of Rs.1,95,92,277/- was made on account of ‘Long Term Capital Gain’ (‘LTCG

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

Capital Gains (LTCG) by way of sale of shares. It is also the case of the Revenue that during the course of the search operations and post-search investigation, various incriminating documents were found and seized which disclosed that income from sale of shares of penny stock companies was disclosed as LTCG by its beneficiaries, and the LTCG earned

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

Capital Gains (LTCG) by way of sale of shares. It is also the case of the Revenue that during the course of the search operations and post-search investigation, various incriminating documents were found and seized which disclosed that income from sale of shares of penny stock companies was disclosed as LTCG by its beneficiaries, and the LTCG earned

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

Capital Gains (LTCG) by way of sale of shares. It is also the case of the Revenue that during the course of the search operations and post-search investigation, various incriminating documents were found and seized which disclosed that income from sale of shares of penny stock companies was disclosed as LTCG by its beneficiaries, and the LTCG earned

VIKAS JAIN,KANPUR vs. ACIT-CC 2(1)(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Vikas Jain, Vs. The Acit, H-2/1, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur- Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur 208001 208006 Pan: Abqpj8049R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025 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), Nfac On 17.05.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 27.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because There Being No Reason To Believe, Far From There Being Any Material To Form Reasons To Believe, The Proceedings Initiated Right From Issue Of Notice U/S. 148 & The Re-Assessment Framed Thereof Are All Without Jurisdiction Bad In Law, The Order Passed Be Quashed. 02. Because The So-Called Reasons Having Been Recorded Applying Explanation 2(A) To Section 147, Of The Act Which Not Being Applicable, The Very Reason To Believe Being Contrary To The Mandate Of The Section, The Proceedings- Initiated U/S 148, The Reassessment Framed Are All Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, Be Quashed. 03. Because The Approval Given By The Competent Authority U/S 151, Being Mechanical In Nature Without Verification Of Facts, The Notice Issued U/S 148 & The Reassessment Framed Thereafter Be Quashed.

gain instead of business income resulting into reduced attributable partners remuneration. The ld. CIT(A) considered all these issues raised by the assessee. On the issue of the wrong invocation of Explanation 2(a) of section 147, the ld. CIT(A) held that it was a mistake covered under section 292B of the Income Tax Act. He relied upon

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

capital gains u/s 69 A instead of Section 45 and wrongly applied the provisions of Section 115BBE thereby making an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- per para 10 of the assessment order which is contrary to law, illegal and arbitrary considering it a deposit under the demonetization which is bad in law and has no legs to stand being

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 gain and therefore he had reason to believe that income to the tune of Rs. 3,31,15,313.49 had escaped assessment for the assessment year 2000-01. In Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. v. CIT [2008] 175 Taxman 262 (Delhi) it was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court as under: 19. Examining the proviso [set out above

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 gain and therefore he had reason to believe that income to the tune of Rs. 3,31,15,313.49 had escaped assessment for the assessment year 2000-01. In Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. v. CIT [2008] 175 Taxman 262 (Delhi) it was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court as under: 19. Examining the proviso [set out above

M/S CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,LAKHIMPUR-KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-I, LAKHIMPUR -KHERI

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

45,29,714/- was disallowed in the\n assessment year 2018-19.\nAggrieved with the decisions of the various ld. AOs in the orders, the\nassessee preferred appeals before the ld. CIT(A), Bareilly and the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. In\nall three appeals, the ld. CIT(A) in these three cases rejected the plea of the assessee\nfor distinguishing

SH. SUKHVINDER SINGH,KANPUR vs. PR CIT, CENTRAL, KANPUR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

capital gain on sale of shares of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd on face value, without independent inquiry. The Ld. PCIT was of the view that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer showed non-application of mind on the documents and materials on record. The Ld. PCIT passed order dated 17.03.2020 under section 263 of the Act whereby

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUCKNOW, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW vs. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., VIBHUTI KHAND GOMTI NAGAR LKO

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

2) of Section 80A of the Act provides that the aggregate amount of the deductions under Chapter VI-A shall not exceed the ‘gross total income’ of the Assessee. We are in agreement with the Appellate Authority that Section 80AB of the Act which deals with determination of deductions under Part C of Chapter VI-A is with respect only

M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. D/ACIT-1,CENTRAL-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

2) of Section 80A of the Act provides that the aggregate amount of the deductions under Chapter VI-A shall not exceed the ‘gross total income’ of the Assessee. We are in agreement with the Appellate Authority that Section 80AB of the Act which deals with determination of deductions under Part C of Chapter VI-A is with respect only

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

2) of Section 80A of the Act provides that the aggregate amount of the deductions under Chapter VI-A shall not exceed the ‘gross total income’ of the Assessee. We are in agreement with the Appellate Authority that Section 80AB of the Act which deals with determination of deductions under Part C of Chapter VI-A is with respect only

M/S. NARAIN PROPERTIES LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ACIT-VI, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

gain which is to be computed in view of provision of section 45 to 54 of 1.T. Act or capital loss which is not admissible at all. The assesse has not furnished any material which proves delivery of shares at the time of purchase and sales. Therefore, in absence of am satisfactory reply and adequate details, the losses

SH. SUKHVINDER SINGH,KANPUR vs. PR CIT, CENTRAL, KANPUR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

45,040/- was seized. Subsequently, locker no 309 in oriental bank of commerce, Ranjeet Nagar, Kanpur, in the name of Shri Sukhwinder Singh and Smt. Suman Preet was also operated in which jewellery amounting to Rs.2,06,20,623/- was found but not seized, all the jewellery items were returned back at the same time.\n\nWith regard

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GONDA vs. M/S. CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, BALRAMPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

gains of the business”. However, the assessee had earned income from commission and interest on deposits of surplus funds available with it. Thereafter, the ld. AO applying the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Limited vs. Income Tax Officer (2010) 322 ITR 283, held that since the two incomes

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GONDA vs. M/S COOPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD, BALRAMPUR, BALRAMPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

gains of the business”. However, the assessee had earned income from commission and interest on deposits of surplus funds available with it. Thereafter, the ld. AO applying the case of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Limited vs. Income Tax Officer (2010) 322 ITR 283, held that since the two incomes