DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

disallowability to deductions in these provisions, on which tax is deductible and no TDS has been made by the assessee. Then, as settled in ‘M/s Teja Construction vs. ACIT’ (supra), all the expenditure, which represents direct costs and, hence, is adjustable against the revenue for the purpose of determining profit under section 28(i) of the Act, does not come

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

STATE BANK OF INDIA, OVERSEAS BRANCH,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.\n6.\nThat the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the Learned\nCIT(Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon'ble\nMember, ITAT.\n7.\nThat

STATE BANK OF INDIA, OVERSEAS BRANCH,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.\n6. That the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the Learned\nCIT(Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon'ble\nMember, ITAT.\n7. That

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) of IT Act 1961, without appreciating that there was 'reasonable cause' for the said failure as per the provisions of Section 273B of the Act 1961.\n6. That the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the Learned CIT(Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon'ble Member, ITAT.\n7. That

SMT. SABREEN,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed and Stay Application is dismissed as infructuous

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee solely on the basis of a report from investigation department of Revenue. However, in that investigation report, neither the name of the assessee nor the name of broker of the assessee has been mentioned. Though the authorities below have relied on the statement ot certain broker and other persons, the name of the broker

GOLDEN COMTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KANPUR, KANPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Golden Comtrade Private Limited, Vs. Acit-5, 58/43, Birhana Road, Kanpur Kanpur-208001 Pan: Aaccg 1622R (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowances as made by the Ld. Assessing Officer: a) Rs. 95,000/- -- Addition/Disallowance U/s 14A read with Section 8(2)(iii) b) Rs. 97,133

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

section of the IT Act. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Udit Narain Agarwal vide judgment and order dated 12.12.2012 in ITA 560 of 2009 wherein their lordships after enumerating various material and information as had been placed on record by the assesses with regard to one such penny stock transaction, has further observed

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

section of the IT Act. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Udit Narain Agarwal vide judgment and order dated 12.12.2012 in ITA 560 of 2009 wherein their lordships after enumerating various material and information as had been placed on record by the assesses with regard to one such penny stock transaction, has further observed

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)

133(6) of the Income Tax Act to eight parties, out of which only three parties had submitted their responses. The assessee was therefore, required to furnish confirmations from the remaining parties or suffer an addition of Rs.06,93,81,546/-. The ld. AO did not describe the response of the assessee to the said show cause notice but pointed

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 The Asstt. Commissioner V. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd Of Income Tax B-9, Vibhuti Khand Central Circle Ii Gomti Nagar Lucnow Lucknow Pan:Aadca5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.19/Lkw/2017 [In Ita No.66/Lkw/2017] Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-9, Vibhuti Khand Income Tax Gomti Nagar Central Circle Ii Lucknow Lucnow Pan:Aadca5639H (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

133 of the Act were also carried out at many premises belonging to the assessee group and its business Associates. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act requiring the assessee to file its return of income. The assessee e-filed its return of income on 28.11.2014 declaring a total income of Rs.61

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

disallowability of any deduction, as section 68, which is a deeming provision, is applicable only when any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee and the assessee is not able to explain the nature and source of such credit. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has also placed reliance on the following case laws

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

disallowing share loss by the AO affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) were those that out of the four blocks of shares delivery of three blocks were received after five months and the price was also paid after five months, but were immediately sold at a loss. The other grounds were that the share broker only in respect

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

disallowing share loss by the AO affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) were those that out of the four blocks of shares delivery of three blocks were received after five months and the price was also paid after five months, but were immediately sold at a loss. The other grounds were that the share broker only in respect

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

disallowing share loss by the AO affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) were those that out of the four blocks of shares delivery of three blocks were received after five months and the price was also paid after five months, but were immediately sold at a loss. The other grounds were that the share broker only in respect

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

disallowing share loss by the AO affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) were those that out of the four blocks of shares delivery of three blocks were received after five months and the price was also paid after five months, but were immediately sold at a loss. The other grounds were that the share broker only in respect

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

disallowing share loss by the AO affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) were those that out of the four blocks of shares delivery of three blocks were received after five months and the price was also paid after five months, but were immediately sold at a loss. The other grounds were that the share broker only in respect

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

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

disallowed, the order passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law. 6. Because the authorities below have failed to appreciate that the statements of the brokers relied upon, both by the Assessing Officer and by the CIT(A), recorded at the back of the appellant without giving the appellant any opportunity to confront the same, the additions made

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BAREILLY vs. M/S L.H SUGAR FACTORY PVT. LTD.,, PILIBHIT

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against an order passed by the tribunal dated 16.9.2015 for the assessment year 2007-08. The following questions of law sought are being sought to be answered: "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ITAT was justified in affirming the action of the A.O. in estimating the suppressed production