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

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

capital, gains and added the differential amount, of Rs.17,54,237/- as 'income from other sources'. The matter was carried in appeal before CIT(Appeals), who vide order dated 27th February, 2008 accepted the plea of the assessee and deleted the addition. The Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal has failed. We have heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned Senior Standing

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

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

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

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

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

capital gain exempt u/s 10(38) amounting to Rs 4,93,068/-. 5.2 On perusal of detail filed during the assessment proceeding it has been noted that appellant has purchased shares of M/s Ashikca Cr for the amount of Rs. 154,009.75 during the period 09.12.2011 4 05.01.2012 and sold for the consideration of Rs. 647608 during the period

SHILPA KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Shilpa Khandelwal V. The Dy. Cit-2 330, Kalibari Bareilly Bareilly (U.P) Tan/Pan:Arypk5700A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 04 2025 O R D E R

money in the guise of exempted Long Term Capital Gains and that the paper work was managed merely to give a colour of authenticity to the transactions and by creating a façade of legitimate transactions. He, accordingly, disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee under section

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

money into white. He observed that many individuals had admitted to the fact of bogus claims of LTCG, STCG and withdrawn their claims by filing revised return and such confessions strengthened the case of the Revenue. In view of all these reasons, the ld. CIT(A) held that there was no reason to interfere with the addition made

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

unexplained money. 4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.13,02,580/- on account of unsecured loan u/s 68 of the IT Act. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.2,22,289/- on account of interest on unsecured loan. 6. That the assessment completed by learned Assessing Officer

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

unexplained money. 4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.13,02,580/- on account of unsecured loan u/s 68 of the IT Act. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.2,22,289/- on account of interest on unsecured loan. 6. That the assessment completed by learned Assessing Officer

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

unexplained money. 4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.13,02,580/- on account of unsecured loan u/s 68 of the IT Act. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.2,22,289/- on account of interest on unsecured loan. 6. That the assessment completed by learned Assessing Officer

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

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

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

unexplained money in the garb of donation is based on her finding that the aforesaid Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society was also running educational institutions and according to the Assessing Officer, the aforesaid Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society should have rather spent the fund to develop the infrastructure of its own institute. There is no adverse comment in the assessment order

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

unexplained money in the garb of donation is based on her finding that the aforesaid Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society was also running educational institutions and according to the Assessing Officer, the aforesaid Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society should have rather spent the fund to develop the infrastructure of its own institute. There is no adverse comment in the assessment order

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

GOPAL JI MISHRA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-6(5), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Gopal Ji Mishra V. The Income Tax Officer 6(5) K-1218, Ashiana Lucknow - New Kanpur Road, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Akjpm8317M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 03 2025 O R D E R

money u/s 69A of the Act by holding that the said amounts remained unexplained. 4.1 BECAUSE as per the information on record, aggregate cash deposits during the year in the said bank accounts were to the tune of Rs.6,30,000/- only (which included cash withdrawal of Rs.4,00,000/- from assessee's own bank account in State Bank