INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUCKNOW vs. RAJEEV KUMAR KAPOOR, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

purchase as bogus only because the party had not replied. It was submitted that non-compliance of notice did not make the expenditure disallowable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. M/S.DEE CONTROL AND ELECTRIC PRIVATE LIMITED, KANPUR

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

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

bogus. Accordingly, he deleted the additions made by the assessee. 4. The Department is aggrieved by the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and has accordingly come before us. Sh. Koushlendra Tiwari, CIT DR (hereinafter referred to as the DR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue pointed out that there were several indicators which showed that the purchases of machinery

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUCKNOW, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW vs. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., VIBHUTI KHAND GOMTI NAGAR LKO

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance of alleged bogus purchase. In the impugned appellate order dated 22/08/2024 of the learned CIT(A), the aforesaid disallowance

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance of alleged bogus purchase. In the impugned appellate order dated 22/08/2024 of the learned CIT(A), the aforesaid disallowance

M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. D/ACIT-1,CENTRAL-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance of alleged bogus purchase. In the impugned appellate order dated 22/08/2024 of the learned CIT(A), the aforesaid disallowance

ROSHANI TRIPATHI,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT RANGE 1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

bogus purchases debited by assessee in her profit & loss account. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in deciding the appeal without considering the reply filed by assessee on dated 16/09/2023 and 18/09/2023, well before due date for submission of reply being vital documents in support of genuineness of purchases like VAT assessment order and purchase list

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance was correctly made by the A.O. 10. The Ld. CIT(A), Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of AO Rs. 16,00,000/-on account of incentive paid without appreciating the fact that the ISCY assessxee has not furnished documentary evidence before A.O. to prove that tax has been deducted on incentive

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Disallowances of Rs. 90352576/- on account of bogus purchases. Deleted the addition in absence of any adverse evidence on record

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Disallowances of Rs. 90352576/- on account of bogus purchases. Deleted the addition in absence of any adverse evidence on record

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-4, LUCKNOW vs. SMT. MOHINI AGARWAL, L/H LATE MUKESH AGARWAL, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowed any purchases and all the purchases were found to be genuine, then the corresponding liability of the purchases cannot be fake or bogus

M/S MADHAV BISCUITS PVT. LTD. ,KANPUR vs. DCIT -6, KANPUR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

purchase of diesel directly under the head generator expenses. In view of the above, we are of the view that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by learned CIT(A) is based merely on guess work, conjecture and surmises. Neither the Assessing Officer nor the learned CIT(A) has identified any single transaction as bogus

BADRI PRASAD VISHWA NATH JEWELS,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-2, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowing purchases amounting to Rs.2,54,52,515/- by applying the provisions of section 40A(3) of Income-tax Act. 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing assessment order which is contrary to the facts and law.” Additional Grounds of Appeal “1. That the notice

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide I

bogus purchases as genuine ones after admitting additional evidences in violation of Rule 46A.”\n\nC.O.No.01/Lkw/2025\n\n1.\nBecause the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts & law not deleting the issue relating to issuance of notice u/s 148 by Assessing Officer not accordance with law and facts.\n\n2.\nBecause the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining

SHRI CHETAN SHARMA,KANPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

purchases and sold only to earn bogus long term capital gains.” On the perusal of the above orders, it can be safely inferred that once all the transactions have occurred through Recognized Stock Exchange and the name of the assessee is not in any of list of beneficiaries, nor in the list of persons involved in the price rigging

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: -

disallowed the credit balance as on 31.03.2015. Thus, the stand of the AO was contradictory. He pointed out that it had been held by the Hon'ble Courts in a number of judgments, that no addition could be made under section 68 of the Act, in respect of credit balances at the end of the financial year, if, the purchases

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: -

disallowed the credit balance as on 31.03.2015. Thus, the stand of the AO was contradictory. He pointed out that it had been held by the Hon'ble Courts in a number of judgments, that no addition could be made under section 68 of the Act, in respect of credit balances at the end of the financial year, if, the purchases

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

bogus expenditure as the income of the trust was not chargeable to tax on account of the availability of exemption under section 11. Furthermore, in assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, no such disallowance had been made. It was further submitted that in the case of the assessee, a search and seizure proceeding had been

BALJEET SINGH,KANPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(2)(1), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowed Rs.8,00,000/- on ad-hoc basis and added to the income of the assessee. When the books of account are I.T.A. No.637/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 3 accepted, purchase is not doubted, no specific transaction either in sale or purchase has been found to be bogus

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

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 as unexplained u/s 69A of the Act when the transaction has been explained

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

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 as unexplained u/s 69A of the Act when the transaction has been explained