INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), KANPUR vs. SHRI RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ms. Amita Bansal vs. Commissioner Of Income (2018) 400 ITR 324 (All) on 30 March, 2017 INCOME TAX APPEAL Mo. - 326 of 2010, HELD: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was correct to hold that

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. MAA RAKTDANTIKA CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

gain maximum return/profit.With reference to payments made to parties from October onwards, the assessee and parties had already mutually agreed to avail a credit facility for 4 months, however, the payments were initiated well before as soon as the assessee commenced the sale of its stock. Further, the amount of Rs.8,30,40,000/- has already been included

M/S. MAA RAKLTDANTIKA CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT/ACIT, RANGE-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

gain maximum return/profit.With reference to payments made to parties from October onwards, the assessee and parties had already mutually agreed to avail a credit facility for 4 months, however, the payments were initiated well before as soon as the assessee commenced the sale of its stock. Further, the amount of Rs.8,30,40,000/- has already been included

SMT. SABREEN,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed and Stay Application is dismissed as infructuous

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

credit of ten lac shares and on sale of 1,11,700 during the AY 2014-15 the balance is reflected at 8,88,300 shares as on 31/03/2014 (PB-26) and on sale of 30,000 shares during AY 2015-16, balance shares are reflected at 8,58,300 as on 31/03/2015 (PB-27). These balance shares

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

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

unexplained nor undisclosed; the appellant's claim for exemption u/s 10(38) be allowed. 5. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in holding that merely because the buyers of shares were shell companies as per the imagination of the revenue, and based on the statements given by the brokers at the back of the appellant

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

unexplained u/s 69A of the Act when the transaction has been explained by complete documentary evidence and accordingly shown u/s 10(38) of the Act being gain from sale of securities transaction and primary onus casted upon the appellant has been discharged. 9. That the ld. CIT(A) and ld. Assessing Officer has failed to establish any nexus or material

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

unexplained u/s 69A of the Act when the transaction has been explained by complete documentary evidence and accordingly shown u/s 10(38) of the Act being gain from sale of securities transaction and primary onus casted upon the appellant has been discharged. 9. That the ld. CIT(A) and ld. Assessing Officer has failed to establish any nexus or material

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

unexplained u/s 69A of the Act when the transaction has been explained by complete documentary evidence and accordingly shown u/s 10(38) of the Act being gain from sale of securities transaction and primary onus casted upon the appellant has been discharged. 9. That the ld. CIT(A) and ld. Assessing Officer has failed to establish any nexus or material

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

unexplained u/s 69A of the Act when the transaction has been explained by complete documentary evidence and accordingly shown u/s 10(38) of the Act being gain from sale of securities transaction and primary onus casted upon the appellant has been discharged. 9. That the ld. CIT(A) and ld. Assessing Officer has failed to establish any nexus or material

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

unexplained u/s 69A of the Act when the transaction has been explained by complete documentary evidence and accordingly shown u/s 10(38) of the Act being gain from sale of securities transaction and primary onus casted upon the appellant has been discharged. 9. That the ld. CIT(A) and ld. Assessing Officer has failed to establish any nexus or material

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 gains’ instead of ‘Profits and 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

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 gains’ instead of ‘Profits and 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

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

LATA AGARWAL,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshralata Agarwal Dcit, Bareilly V. 35-A/6 Rampur Garden Aaykar Bhawan Civil Bareilly-243001, Uttar Pradesh. Lines, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aanpa0616R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ravinder Aggarwal, Ca Respondent By: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 01 2025 O R D E R

capital gain as unexplained cash credits and thereby making the addition u/s 68 of Rs. 57,00,000/-. 3. On the facts

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

cash credits/ unexplained money ignoring the sale deeds effected during the financial year 2016-17. 3 3. That the A.O. grossly erred in adding back Rs.3252800/- u/s 50C and at the same time resorting to application of provisions of Section 115BBE thus confusing the entire transaction which in facts was simply a clear cut case of 'Capital Gains

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

cash was paid and cheques were received in lieu of commission paid through his CA Mr. Manish Agarwal, The details of bogus unsecured loans received by assessee is given as under- ………………………. …………………………… In assessment year under consideration an amount of Rs.4,70,50,000/- arranged through M/s Wise Financial Advisor Services Pvt. Ltd. on a commission