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

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

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

SHIMLA PROPERTIES,LUCKNOW vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 Shimla Properties V. The Pcit 30C, Datiya House Lucknow Khursheed Bagh Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ablfs9732M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16 08 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 09 2022 O R D E R

64,000/- claimed in the return under the head ‘short term capital gain’ on sale of shares of M/s Nyassa Corporation Ltd. had statedly escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer passed the re- assessment order (APB-54-60) under section

KAPIL KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BAREILLY , BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Kapil Khandelwal, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of 56, Moar Kothi, Gangapur, Bareilly Income Tax, Circle-I, Bareilly Pan: Aiypk4908M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 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 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Penalty Levied Upon The Assessee Under Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Ao On 17.03.2022 & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because Requisite Satisfaction For Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) If The Income Tax Act 1961 Was Not Recorded In The Regular Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2017 Passed A/S 100%, Therefore, Penalty Proceedings Got Wholly Vitiated & Consequently, The Id. "Cit(A)" Ought To Have Quashed The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022, Being Illegal, Bad-In-Law & Without Jurisdiction 2. Because The Show Cause Notice For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Did Not Specify Under Which Limb Penalty Was Sought To Be Imposed I.E.. Whether On Account Of Concealment Of Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Consequently, The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022 Passed By Faceless Assessing Officer Deserved To Be Quashed.

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the said capital gains claimed exempt should not be disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. After considering the replies of the assessee in this regard, the ld. AO had added back a sum of Rs. 20,64

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capital Gain was computed amounting to Rs.68,98,817/- and claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act against the investment made in house property situated at 57, Laxmanpuri, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. However, Ld. AO rejected the claim of assessee on following ground being details filed in ITR in AL schedule:- i. opp. VikasBhawan, Pant Nagar, Civil Lines, Gonda

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

Capital Gain was computed amounting to Rs.68,98,817/- and claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act against the investment made in house property situated at 57, Laxmanpuri, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. However, Ld. AO rejected the claim of assessee on following ground being details filed in ITR in AL schedule:- i. opp. VikasBhawan, Pant Nagar, Civil Lines, Gonda

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

Capital Gain was computed amounting to Rs.68,98,817/- and claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act against the investment made in house property situated at 57, Laxmanpuri, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. However, Ld. AO rejected the claim of assessee on following ground being details filed in ITR in AL schedule:- i. opp. VikasBhawan, Pant Nagar, Civil Lines, Gonda

TANEJA RICE & DALL MILLS,KANPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Ys. 2003-04

capital gain was shown at Rs.13,77,020/-). it deserves to be held that the appellant could not have been visited with the "charge" of concealment of income and levy of penalty on that "charge", as has been upheld by the "CIT(A)" also, was wholly illegal. 3 5. BECAUSE otherwise also and in any case, it deserves

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

64,119/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section 14A does not use the word ‘income of the year’ but ‘income under the act’ and CBDT circular no. 05/2014 dated 11/02/2014 makes it clear that the expenses, which are relatable to earning of exempt income have to be considered for disallowance irrespective of the fact whether