MOHAMMED JUNED SIDDIQUI,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Mohammed Juned Siddiqui, Vs. Dcit/Acit-1, C-84/2, Sarvodaya Nagar, Indira Lucknow New Nagar, Lucknow-226016 Pan: Aqnps6188G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Samrat Chandra Ca & Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 20.11.2024, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao Dated 30.12.2018, Passed Under Section 143(3). The Grounds Of Appeal In Both The Appeals Are As Under: - “1. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed Being Illegal. 2. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition Of Rs.11,38,70,742/- Under The Head Capital Gain, Which Was Exempt U/S 10(37) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Not Allowing The Benefit Of Provision Of Rfctlarr Act, 2013. 3. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of Rs. 11,38,70,742/- Only On The Basis Of Roving Enquiries Without Providing An Opportunity Of Being Heard. 4. Because Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of 6,98,27,344/- Under The Head Capital Gains Being Amount

57,938/-, (for 1.135 Hectares) that of Mohd Arfee Siddiqui was Rs.4,23,42,062/- (for .312 Hectares) and Rs.5,90,00,000/- was that of Sh. Ram Adhar (for an area of .696 Hectares). This was also stated to be the major source for the amount transferred to the capital account, besides a receipt of Rs.4,65,400/- from

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

57 (Delhi)(HC)\nHaryana Coach Body Builders (2006) 10 SOT 736 (Delhi)\nMere lack of inquiry by Assessing Officer is not sufficient for revision\nunder section 263.\nAsstt. Order cannot be held to be erroneous, if in opinion of the CIT order\nshould have been more elaborate or that further enquiry should have\nbeen made.\nWhether what is proper,\nrequisite

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. SUDHANSHU TRIVEDI, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit V. Sudhanshu Trivedi Lucknow 21/1013, Sector 21 Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ackpt4164G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, D.R. Respondent By: S/Shri Rajat Jain & Akshat Jain, Cas O R D E R

Capital Gains which were claimed as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act by the beneficiaries. The assessee was required to explain the credit entry of Rs.1,36,00,000/- in his Bank account and after considering the submissions made by the assessee, the AO, not being satisfied with the replies furnished by the assessee, held that the assessee

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

57; Hari\nIron Trading Company vs. CIT, 263 ITR437 (P&H); Malabar Industrial Co.\nLtd. vs.CIT,243 ITR 83(S.C.); CIT vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (P)\nLtd. 331 ITR 192 (Del.); CIT vs. International Travel House Lid. 194\nТахтап 324; CIT vs. DLF Power Limited 329 ITR 289 (Del.); CIT vs. Eicher\nLimited

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

57, Ram Tirath Marg- 226001. PAN:ACPPY8182Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Dharmendra Kumar, CA Respondent by: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 04 11 2025 Date of pronouncement: 09 12 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: These two appeals by the assessee against order u/s 147 read with section

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

57, Ram Tirath Marg- 226001. PAN:ACPPY8182Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Dharmendra Kumar, CA Respondent by: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 04 11 2025 Date of pronouncement: 09 12 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: These two appeals by the assessee against order u/s 147 read with section

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

57,616/-. (E.1) As regards the computation of book profit u/s 115JB of IT Act, it is useful to refer to provisions of law, which are reproduced below for the ease of reference: Special provision for payment of tax by certain companies. 115JB. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, where in the case

ABHAY BENARA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Abhay Benara, The Deputy V. Commissioner Of Income C/O 24/4, The Mall Kanpur-208001. Tax, Central Circle-1 Kanpur. Pan:Adlpb2007Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs.1,06,05,092/- and income from other sources of Rs.8,35,384/-, disallowance of interest of Rs.12,79,271/- and the addition of Rs.32,65,300/- u/s 68. The AO also made an addition of Rs.15,643/- being the income of minor. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before

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 Gains as computed in the case of other co-owners having been accepted on the same figure as that declared by the assessee, the initiation of reassessment over loading the same, is contrary to provisions of law, the reassessment framed be quashed. 7. Because the Assessing Officer has failed to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer

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

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

57,954/- on sale of shares of M/s Bluecircles Services Ltd. In order to verify genuiness of long term capital gains, information u/s 133(6) were called for from the brokers as well as Commission u/s 131(1)(d) of the IT Act1961were also make an enquiry about the transaction. The brokers have furnished the copies of account

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

57,954/- on sale of shares of M/s Bluecircles Services Ltd. In order to verify genuiness of long term capital gains, information u/s 133(6) were called for from the brokers as well as Commission u/s 131(1)(d) of the IT Act1961were also make an enquiry about the transaction. The brokers have furnished the copies of account

M/S. SANGAM POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD., ,NOIDA vs. ITO- 6(1), LUCKNOW

Appeals of the assessee are PARTLY ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.264 & 265/Lkw/2020 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2014-15 Sangam Power Generation Company Ltd, Sector – 128, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, Up-201304 Pan: Aakcs8971P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

gain but source of income for all these ITAT-Lucknow Page 5 of 14 Sangam Power Generation Company Ltd Vs ITO 6(1) ITA No.264 & 265/LKW/2020 AY:2013-14 to 2014-15 income taxable under these three different heads is same I.e. business undertaking. Hence, in the facts of the present case, where the entire funds available with the assessee

M/S. SANGAM POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ITO- 6(1), LUCKNOW

Appeals of the assessee are PARTLY ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.264 & 265/Lkw/2020 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2014-15 Sangam Power Generation Company Ltd, Sector – 128, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, Up-201304 Pan: Aakcs8971P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

gain but source of income for all these ITAT-Lucknow Page 5 of 14 Sangam Power Generation Company Ltd Vs ITO 6(1) ITA No.264 & 265/LKW/2020 AY:2013-14 to 2014-15 income taxable under these three different heads is same I.e. business undertaking. Hence, in the facts of the present case, where the entire funds available with the assessee

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

gains’ of business or profession. In CIT vs. TirathramAhuja (HUF) (2008) 6 DTR (Del) 335 has held that there was no failure on the part of assessee to disclose a material fact where rateable value of the property was enhanced by the Municipal Corporation after assessment for assessment year 1991–92 to 1993-94 had been computed, hence reopening

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

gains’ of business or profession. In CIT vs. TirathramAhuja (HUF) (2008) 6 DTR (Del) 335 has held that there was no failure on the part of assessee to disclose a material fact where rateable value of the property was enhanced by the Municipal Corporation after assessment for assessment year 1991–92 to 1993-94 had been computed, hence reopening

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

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD VIKRAMJOT BASTI,VIKRAMJOT vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER BASTI -NEW, INCOME TAX OFFICE BASTI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sahkari Ganna Vikas V. The Income Tax Officer Samiti Ltd. Basti Vikramjot, Basti (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aabas4611B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.12.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912. The Main Activity Of The Assessee Was Marketing Of Sugar Cane Grown By The Cane Growers, Who Were Members Of The Assessee-Society. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 21.03.2018, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,73,170/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee-Society Had Received Commission From Sugar Mills On Supply Of Sugar Cane Of Rs.70,16,032/-, Which Was Claimed As Exempt In Terms Of Section 80P(2)(A)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act

57 of the Act was not allowable, as the assessee was a co-operative society and was eligible for deduction under chapter VI-A read with section 80P(2)(a)(ii) of the Act only. The AO, therefore, treated the amount of Rs.20,33,851/- as the income of the assessee and added the same to the total income

SYED ASIF ALI,GOMTI NAGAR vs. ACIT, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed\nfor statistical purposes

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n(hereinafter called \"the Act\'), computing the income of the\nassessee as under:\nTotal income as per Return\nAddition of Foreign Gain Exchanges\nAddition on capital introduced\nTotal income (rounded off)\n: Rs.1,31,57