INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR vs. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and preliminary objections raised by ld A.R. was also rejected and ld D.R. was asked to proceed with his arguments. I.T.A. No.153/Lkw/2020 Assessment. Year:2014-15 4 7. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has declared long term capital gain on the sale of little known penny stocks, the prices of which

DIVESH KUMAR,BAREILLY vs. ACIT CENTRAL, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Divesh Kumar Shri Kharak Singh V. Rawat, 19, Shishgarh, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh-243105. Dc/Acit-Cent, Bareilly Office Of The Acit, Central Circle Dc/Acit Cent Bareilly-1-243001 Pan:Cfdpk1712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 19 11 2024

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of - (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and (ii) the amount

CENTRAL METHODIST CHURCH,LUCKNOW vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

condonation of delay under section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act and decide the same on merits. The ld. CIT (Exemption) considered the issues raised by the assessee and pointed out that it was clear from the provisions of section 11 and 12, that the assessee had to submit the prescribed report i.e. Form No. 10B within

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

condone the delay in filing the appeals and preliminary objections raised by ld A.R. was also rejected and ld D.R. was asked to proceed with his arguments. 7. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has raised long term capital gain on the sale of little known penny stocks, the prices of which were manipulated with the help of certain

GYANENDRA PRATAP SRIVASTAVA,BAHRAICH vs. ITO-2, BAHRAICH

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2010-11 Gyanendra Pratap Srivastava Ito-Ii V. Payagpur, Bahraich-271801. Bahraich-271801, Uttar Pradesh. Pan:Ataps3192C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 01 2025 O R D E R

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the order passed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, more particularly, when the appellant had filed the return in response

MAA SIDDHIDATRI SEVA SAMITI,LUCKNOW vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

68. 6. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on peculiar facts found in the present case in making addition u/s 69A of Rs 5,00,000/- which is beyond the vires, intent, purpose and scope of sec. 69A especially when all Sales and Purchases ( including of Rs 5,00,000/-) was already found in the Bank statement

UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

condone such delay as per section\n119(2)(b)\".\n6. 27. Since the appellant has not furnished any order passed by CIT(Exemption)\ncondoning the delay in filing of Form 10B, the AO has rightly denied the exemption\nclaimed u/s.11 of the Act and therefore, it does not warrant any interference.\nAppellant's Ground Nos.2 to 11 are partly allowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT\nAND\nSHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)

condone such delay as per section\n119(2)(b)\".\n\n6. 27. Since the appellant has not furnished any order passed by CIT(Exemption)\ncondoning the delay in filing of Form 10B, the AO has rightly denied the exemption\nclaimed u/s.11 of the Act and therefore, it does not warrant any interference.\nAppellant's Ground Nos.2 to 11 are partly

SHARDA DEVI,BASTI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, BASTI

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Sharda Devi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, W/O Shyam Singh, Near Zila Basti-New Chikitsalaya, Purani Basti, Basti-2721 Pan: Auspd8424B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 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), Nfac Dated 16.01.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of Penalty Passed By The Ld. Ao Dated 17.01.2022 In Limine Without Going Into The Merits Of The Case. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Being Cash Deposited In Bank During Demonetization Period Under Section 69A R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act, Which Addition Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law Be Deleted. 02. Because The Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Assessee Is Carrying On The Business Of Household Items, Such As, Business Of Achar, Kuchry (Grocery) Declaring Profit Under Section 44Ad @ 8% Wherein The Provisions Of Section 68 & Section 69 Are Not Applicable, The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Made By The Ao & Upheld By The Cit(A) Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law Be Deleted. 03. Because The Explanation Furnished By The Assessee Has Not Been Found False Of Untrue, The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Made By The Ao & Upheld By The Cit(A) Be Deleted.”

68 and section 69 are not applicable, the addition of Rs.8,11,663/- made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) is contrary to the provisions of law be deleted. 03. Because the explanation furnished by the assessee has not been found false of untrue, the addition of Rs.8,11,663/- made by the AO and upheld

SITA RAM RASTOGI,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(5),, LAKHIMPUR KHERI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2017-18 Sita Ram Rastogi V. The Ito Prop. M/S Shyam Jewellers Ward 3(5) Lakhimpur Kheri Lakhimpur Kheri Tan/Pan:Agapr6341R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 09 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 09 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 26.11.2021, For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Learned Income Tax Officer Made An Addition Of Rs.19,10,000/- As Un Explained Cash Deposit In The Books Maintained By The Assessee Whereas There Is No Such Single Deposit In The Books. 2. That The Additions Of Rs.15,688/- & Rs.5,693/- Have Been Made Without Any Basis Which Are Simply The Guess Work & Therefore Not Justified. 3. That The Learned Income Tax Officer Has Not Pointed Out Any Mistake Or Discrepancy In The Books Of Account As Is Evident From His Order In Paras 3 To 6 & Straight Away Made Up His Mind To Make Addition As Is Evident From His Observation Below Para 6 Of His Order. 4. That The Appellant Had Explained The Availability Of Funds (Old Sbn'S), Which Was Accepted By The Assessing Officer.

condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for hearing. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of jewellery in the name of M/s Shyam Jewellers, being its proprietor. The assessee filed Page 3 of 11 his return of income for the on 20.2.2018, declaring a total income

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. SHRI YOGESH MULWANI, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2016-17 The Asstt. Cit V. Shri Yogesh Mulwani Range 1 36, Cantonment Road Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ahnpm4669B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Respondent By: Shri K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 19 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 06 2022 O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Apropos addition of Rs.1,61,64,481/- under the head ‘Sundry Creditors’, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer, observing as under: “4.4 I have considered the submission of the appellant, facts mentioned in the assessment order and Remand Report and rejoinder submitted

ATHLETIC STUDIO PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Athletic Studio V. The Dcit/Acit-1 Private Limited Lucknow 11-Cp/2, Ring Road Vikas Nagar, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aalca7841H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R

68 read with section 115BBE of I. T. Act. 4. The books of accounts of the Assessee produced during the assessment Proceeding has been accepted hence no addition should be made merely relying on the human conduct and preponderance of probability. Further, the Case Laws relied on are distinguishable from the facts of the case. ITA No.56/LKW/2025 Page

SHRI MANOJ GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the department and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Manoj Gupta Acit, Range-3 V. B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, 27/2, P.K. Complex, Raja Lucknow-226024. Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Range-3 V. Manoj Gupta 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, Marg, P. K. Complex, Lucknow- Lucknow-226024. 226001. Pan: Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: Both These Appeals Arise Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-1, Lucknow [Hereinafter Referred As To “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred As To “The Act”] Dated 18.09.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. While Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Ita. No.444/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Department. As The Issues Involved In Both These Appeals Are Similar & Arise Out Of The Same Orders, The Appeals Are Taken Up For Disposal Together. The Grounds Of Appeal In Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Are As Under: -

delay in filing of the said appeal is condoned. 4. The facts of the case are, that the assessee is an individual in the business of Civil Contracting. He filed his return of income for the relevant year on 30.09.2015, declaring total income of Rs.37,59,850/-. The AO made an addition of Rs.1,70,21,613/- under section 68

D.C.I.T., RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. SHRI MANOJ GUPTA, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the department and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Manoj Gupta Acit, Range-3 V. B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, 27/2, P.K. Complex, Raja Lucknow-226024. Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Range-3 V. Manoj Gupta 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, Marg, P. K. Complex, Lucknow- Lucknow-226024. 226001. Pan: Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: Both These Appeals Arise Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-1, Lucknow [Hereinafter Referred As To “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred As To “The Act”] Dated 18.09.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. While Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Ita. No.444/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Department. As The Issues Involved In Both These Appeals Are Similar & Arise Out Of The Same Orders, The Appeals Are Taken Up For Disposal Together. The Grounds Of Appeal In Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Are As Under: -

delay in filing of the said appeal is condoned. 4. The facts of the case are, that the assessee is an individual in the business of Civil Contracting. He filed his return of income for the relevant year on 30.09.2015, declaring total income of Rs.37,59,850/-. The AO made an addition of Rs.1,70,21,613/- under section 68

BHARTIYA JAN SEWA ASHRAM,JAUNPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act);\n(3) grants in question had been received for 'specified purpose' which was in\nconformity with the objects of the “appellant society\" and the same being fully\nverifiable from utilization, reports, surplus and other related information as had\nduly been placed on record during the course of assessment/appellate proceedings\nand on a due consideration

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), KANPUR vs. SHRI ARVIND KUMAR GUPTA, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is held to be allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH.KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for hearing. 5. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee filed a return on 30.09.2015 showing total income of Rs. 5,60,840/-. It was observed that he had claimed a deduction under section 10(38) for long term capital gain to the tune of Rs.59

LAXMI DUTT BHATT,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.830/Lkw/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 Laxmi Dutt Bhatt V. Ito-3(2) Range-Iii C-340, Sector-B, Mahanagar, Aaykar Bhawan, Ashok Lucknow-226001. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Agypb8691B अपीलाथ"/(Appellant) ""यथ"/(Respondent) अपीलाथ" "क और से/Appellant By: None ""यथ" "क और से /Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई "क तार"ख / Date Of Hearing: 25 03 2025 घोषणा "क तार"ख/ Date Of 03 04 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) without any justification came to a finding that “the conduct of the appellant is against human probabilities and apparent the said story has been concocted by the appellant to explain the cash deposit Rs.20,00,000/- in his bank account. 8. That the authorities were wrong

SHASHI INFRA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ITO, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Shashi Infra V. The Constructions Pvt Ltd Addl/Joint/Deputy/Asstt/Income 328B, 5Th Lane Rajendra Tax Officer, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226004. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Tan/Pan:Aaucs5802M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merits. (B) In this case, the assessment order dated 23.03.2022 was passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income Page 3 of 22 Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.5

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68 on account of treatment of Unsecured Loan as unexplained sum. (ii) Addition of Rs.2,37,000/- made u/s 69C on account of estimated commission on alleged unexplained sum. (iii) Disallowance of Rs.17,25,096/-made u/s 37 on account of disallowance of interest on unsecured loan. 6. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case