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, ignoring the fact that purchase of such shares was not doubted by the A.O. ?" However, in view of the finding recorded by the assessing officer for addition to be made under section 68 of the Act without allowing any deduction in respect of cost of acquisition of the shares, it necessarily flows from such finding that the assessing officer

MAHESH MITTAL,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-5, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshramahesh Mittal V. Acit, Range-5 1/16, Vinay Khand Gomti Income Tax Office Ashok Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Acqpm4459B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Akshay Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

unexplained credit by failing to consider the explanation tendered by the Appellant. 7. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in presuming that these amounts were transferred indirectly from M/s Fair Intermediate Investments Private Limited (in which the Appellant was the director) to the Appellant, without appreciating the fact that since

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

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

Investment so made was reflected in the statement of affairs of the "appellant" in the earlier year (in the year, of acquisition and onward)for which "return" had duly been filed; d) The shares so acquired held in demat account; e) The shares were sold to the companies through the brokers; f) The brokers through whom shares had been sold

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

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

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

SHRI SWATANTRA KUMAR SHUKLA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Swatantra Kumar Shukla, Vs. Dy. Cit-3, Kanpur 61/139, Sita Ram Mohal, Kanpur- 208001 (U.P.) Pan: Acaps5484N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 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)- 1, Kanpur, Passed On 29.07.2019 Wherein The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 29.12.2017 Has Been Dismissed. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That The Ld Cit(A) Was Wrong In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,39,81,850- Made By The Ao Without Any Valid Reason. 2. That The Revenue Was Wrong In Disallowing The Claim Of Long Term Capital Gains U/S 10(38) Of The Act & The Same Is Against Facts & Law. 3. That The Various Case Law Cited By The Revenue In Rejecting The Claim Is Wrong In As Much As The Facts Of The Appellant'S Case Are Distinguishable From The Cited Case Law. 4. That The Revenue Was Wrong In Invoking Section 68 Of The Act & The Same Is Not Justified & Unwarranted. 5. That It Was Wrong On The Part Of Revenue To Invoke Section 68 Of The Act In As Much As Initial Onus On The Assessee To Establish Identity, Credit Capacity Of The Creditor & Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Discharged. 6. That The Finding Of The Ld Ao That 'Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.1 39,81,850/ Claimed By The Assessee Is Held To Have Been Arranged By The Assessee Through

capital gains. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee had not sold shares to any companies as alleged by the ld. Assessing Officer. Rather they had sold their shares on the floor of the stock exchange and were not concerned with who had purchased the said shares. It was further argued that the assessee had not been given adequate opportunity

KARUNESH KUMAR SHUKLA,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), LUCKNOW

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

Capital gain when from the deeds it is clear that the share of sale consideration assessable in the hands of the assessee is Rs. 3,38,50,000/- (Total of Rs. 2,41,00,000.00 and Rs. 97,50,000.00). 3. Because without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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

unexplained investment, by arbitrarily rejecting an exhaustive, valid and legitimate explanation tendered by the assessee. The money invested by the assessee in purchase of property is recorded in its books of account and is evidenced through banking transactions, the money is sourced out of persons and entities. Thus, the addition has been sustained on material and whimsically. 6. Because

KOBSAI HOSPITALLITIES PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No.290/LKW/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

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

gain by not filing the appeal in time, the CIT(A), NFAC, was not justified in not condoning the delay, the order passed by the CIT(A), NFAC, be set aside. 03. Because the entire proceedings-initiated u/s.148 are devoid of material or reasons, there being no reason to believe, the ground on which the reopening has been initiated

KOBSAI HOSPITALITIES PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No.290/LKW/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

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

gain by not filing the appeal in time, the CIT(A), NFAC, was not justified in not condoning the delay, the order passed by the CIT(A), NFAC, be set aside. 03. Because the entire proceedings-initiated u/s.148 are devoid of material or reasons, there being no reason to believe, the ground on which the reopening has been initiated

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

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

unexplained investment AY 2012-13.\"\n\n(B.2) Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT started proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. Vide notice dated 27.02.2020, the Ld. PCIT was of the view that the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee's claim for capital gain

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

unexplained investment AY 2012-13.” (B.2) Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT started proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. Vide notice dated 27.02.2020, the Ld. PCIT was of the view that the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee’s claim for capital gain

SHRI SUBODH AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

capital gains and Rs.2,75,488/- being difference in Valuation Report of the District Valuation Officer on immovable property. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the ld. First Appellate Authority. However, the appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority came to be dismissed. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal, challenging the dismissal of its appeal

SHRI SUBODH AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

capital gains and Rs.2,75,488/- being difference in Valuation Report of the District Valuation Officer on immovable property. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the ld. First Appellate Authority. However, the appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority came to be dismissed. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal, challenging the dismissal of its appeal

NETPLAST PVT.LTD.,KANPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(3)(1), KANPUR

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

gain would be\npaid.\nSince the assessee could not substantiate the alleged capital\nexpenditure of Rs.84,00,000/- claimed to have been made by\nShri Arpit Agarwal in the land, which is lying in the books of the\nassessee by producing/furnishing reliable documentary\nevidences. Thus, the assessee failed to prove genuineness of the\ntransaction. It is on record that during