RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

disallowances of expenses on\nnon adherence of TDS provision under section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is\nestimated.\n\n9. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition of Rs.12,01,000/- computed addition of Rs.61,31,000/- \nagainst actual consideration of Rs.31

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

3. The Ld.CIT(A), Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.11,93,00,020/-on account of interest on LIC loan without appreciating the fact that deduction of interest on LIC loan from sale is against the tariff order decided by UPERC. 4. The CIT(A), Lucknow has erred

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the Cross Objection; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the Cross Objection for hearing. The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the Cross Objection; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the Cross Objection for hearing. The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the Cross Objection; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the Cross Objection for hearing. The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application

BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, ADMINISTRETIVE OFFICE,KANPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

disallowance of LTC/LTA under section 10(5)\nof IT Act 1961, without appreciating that there was 'reasonable\ncause' for the said failure as per the provisions of Section 273B\nof the Act 1961.\n\n6. That the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the Learned\nCIT(Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon'ble\nMember, ITAT

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

131\n17,03,38,176\n10.13\n11%\n10.13%\n2022-23\n2,82,59,71,973\n28,50,48,173\n11%\n9.68%\nAddition on extra profit\ndeleted.\nThat during the course of search proceeding in statement recorded u/s \n132(4), dated 05/06.02.2022 assessee admitted following –\nThat percentage of net profit shown of M/s Alok Construction is \napproximately 6% of its turnover

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR., KANPUR vs. M/S. SUSHRUT INSTITUTE OF PLASTIC SURGERY PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic Central Circle 2 Surgery Private Limited Kanpur 29, Shahmeena Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.15/Lkw/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No.30/Lkw/2023] Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic V. The Acit Surgery Private Limited Central Circle 2 29, Shahmeena Road Kanpur Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Cross - Objector) (Respondent)

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.16,99,00,480/-. 2.4 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Act. ITA No.30/LKW/2023

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

131(1)(d) to DDIT(Inv.) Mumbai.: the examination of the documents filed the assessee have been meticulously done by AO, Independent enquiry has been made, that is enquiry made with the Broker D.B & Company through department letter 27/02/2017, repl y received vide letter dated 13/04/2017 of the broker, also through DDIT (Inv) Kolkatta, Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited

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

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

131(1)(d) to DDIT(Inv.) Mumbai. It is not the case that the A.O. did not have knowledge of the above reports as the assessments order does find mention of the above reports.\n\n(h) The A.O. ignored these reports and the fact that the astronomical increase in share prices was not commensurate to the intrinsic value

ABDUL HAMEED CHIKWA,KANPUR vs. ACIT, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals in ITA

disallowance of the claim made under section\n8OHHC and that being a legal claim, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) are\nnot attracted, the penalty imposed be deleted.\n5. Because on a proper consideration of facts and circumstances of the\ncase, it would be found that there is no furnishing of inaccurate particulars\nof income, the Explanation

GURU KRIPA ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PR. CIT, , BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

131/- as on\n08.11.2016. As stated, supra, it is\npertinent to note that the assessee had\nindeed deposited cash in the bank account\nfrom 01.04.2016 to 08.11.2016 in the\nsum of Rs.94,23,500/-. While it is so,\nthere is no reason to suspect the cash\ndeposit made during demonetization\nperiod in the sum of Rs.80,50,000/-.\nMore

ABDUL HAMEED CHIKWA,KANPUR vs. ACIT, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals in ITA

sections": [ "143(3)", "271(1)(c)", "80HHC", "133(6)", "131" ], "issues": "Whether the appeals can be continued after the death of the assessee when legal heirs are not brought on record as per the applicable rules. Whether the disallowance

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, 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

section 37 of the IT Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. AO well as Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.25,52,798/- on account of extra profit on the alleged shortage of stock. (This ground of appeal was not pressed by the assessee). 4. That the order passed by Ld. AO is bad on facts

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

section 37 of the IT Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. AO well as Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.25,52,798/- on account of extra profit on the alleged shortage of stock. (This ground of appeal was not pressed by the assessee). 4. That the order passed by Ld. AO is bad on facts

PROP. R K AGENCIES KHUTAR ROAD GOLA GOKARAN NATH DISTT LAKHIMPUR KHERI,GOLA GOKARAN NATH DISTT KHERI vs. PROP., ITO LAKHIMPUR KHEI UTTAR PRADESH

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2016-17 Priyanka Tiwari V. Income Tax Officer 3(5) Prop. R. K. Agencies Lakhimpur Khutar Road, Gola Gokaran Nath Lakhimpur Kheri Tan/Pan:Amept3933B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R.

131(A) ITA No.251/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’), the statements on oath of Shri Babloo Rathore and Shri Vivek Mishra were recorded. During the course of recording their statements on oath, both of them stated that the cash belonged to the assessee, Smt. Priyanka Tiwari, Proprietor of M/s R.K. Agencies

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

disallowing the claim of Long Term Capital gains u/s 10(38) of the Act and the same is against facts and 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

LALJI YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

131 (SC) [2021] 28 Taxman 307\n(SC)[26-07-2021].\n4.4 Further, reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court d\nMadhya Pradesh in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CW [1979 223\nITR 480 (M.P.), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has dismissed the reference' filed\nat the instance