ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

gain, benefit, advantage or livelihood, Union League Club v. Johnson 18 Cat 2d 275. Enterprise in which person engaged shows willingness to invest time and capital on future outcome. Doggett v. Burnet 62 App DC 103; 65 F. 2D 191. That which habitually busies or occupies or engages the time, attention, labour and effort of persons as a principal serious

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

gain, benefit, advantage or livelihood, Union League Club v. Johnson 18 Cat 2d 275. Enterprise in which person engaged shows willingness to invest time and capital on future outcome. Doggett v. Burnet 62 App DC 103; 65 F. 2D 191. That which habitually busies or occupies or engages the time, attention, labour and effort of persons as a principal serious

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

gain, benefit, advantage or livelihood, Union League Club v. Johnson 18 Cat 2d 275. Enterprise in which person engaged shows willingness to invest time and capital on future outcome. Doggett v. Burnet 62 App DC 103; 65 F. 2D 191. That which habitually busies or occupies or engages the time, attention, labour and effort of persons as a principal serious

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

gain, benefit, advantage or livelihood, Union League Club v. Johnson 18 Cat 2d 275. Enterprise in which person engaged shows willingness to invest time and capital on future outcome. Doggett v. Burnet 62 App DC 103; 65 F. 2D 191. That which habitually busies or occupies or engages the time, attention, labour and effort of persons as a principal serious

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

gain, benefit, advantage or livelihood, Union League Club v. Johnson 18 Cat 2d 275. Enterprise in which person engaged shows willingness to invest time and capital on future outcome. Doggett v. Burnet 62 App DC 103; 65 F. 2D 191. That which habitually busies or occupies or engages the time, attention, labour and effort of persons as a principal serious

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

gain, benefit, advantage or livelihood, Union League Club v. Johnson 18 Cat 2d 275. Enterprise in which person engaged shows willingness to invest time and capital on future outcome. Doggett v. Burnet 62 App DC 103; 65 F. 2D 191. That which habitually busies or occupies or engages the time, attention, labour and effort of persons as a principal serious

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

section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’). During the ITA No.200/LKW/2018 Page 2 of 13 course of assessment proceedings, from the documents furnished by the assessee, the AO noticed that the assessee had purchased a flat W2B-114 on 11th Floor at Gurgaon on 27.01.2004 for Rs.28,45,381/- (total indexed cost including Stamp duty

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 68 of the Act. Upon appeal the assessee adduced evidence in the shape of contract notes/bills receipt; payments made through banking channel; contract notes and; copies of passbook of its Demat account in support of it thus asserted its claim of long term capital gain as genuine and correct. Qua the payment made by the assessee for purchase

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

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 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale of securities be treated

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 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale of securities be treated

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 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale of securities be treated

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 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale of securities be treated

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 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale of securities be treated

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

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

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