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

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

BHAWANI DEVELOPERS,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW-NEW

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid\ndirections

133(6) of\nthe Act. The assesse has also failed to furnished any supporting documentary evidences\nsuch as confirmation of Party, trading and profit and loss account of the party for A.Y. 2018-\n19, balance sheet of the party for A.Y. 2018-19, bank statement of the party for A.Y. 2018-\n19, copy of return of Income of the assessee

SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance has to be made in accordance with the said\nrule. With regard to the interest on such investments, the amount would be\ncomputed as per provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D (2) (ii), the\ndetails of which are as under.\n1. The amount of expenditure by way of interest other than the amount of\ninterest included

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

disallowance of foreign commission treating the same as prior period expenditure of Rs. 2,60,000/-. 5. That the appellant being aggrieved went in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who deleted the above additions but confirmed the addition amounting of Rs.2,96,50,131/- to the extent of six sundry creditor which ITA. No.139/LKW/2022 Page 6 of 158 were

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

disallowance of foreign commission treating the same as prior period expenditure of Rs. 2,60,000/-. 5. That the appellant being aggrieved went in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who deleted the above additions but confirmed the addition amounting of Rs.2,96,50,131/- to the extent of six sundry creditor which ITA. No.139/LKW/2022 Page 6 of 158 were

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

disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the Assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC. However, the appeal before ITA No.313/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 17 the NFAC came to be dismissed without providing any relief

ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), KANPUR, KANPUR vs. KHANNA SALES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Ito, Vs. Khanna Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(3)(1), Kanpur 54/34, Nayaganj, Kanpur Pan: Aabck4442N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Swarn Singh, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) For The A.Y. 2017- 18 On 29.12.2019. The Grounds Of The Appeal Are As Under: - “1- Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating The Pattern Of Cash Sales Discussed By The Assessing Officer In Detail In His Order Which Shows A Substantial Jump Of 38% Of Total Sales In The Month Of October, 2016 I.E. The Period Immediately Prior To Demonetization In November, 2016. Cash Sales Before & After This Period Is Negligible. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend Any One Or More Of The Grounds Of Appeal As Stated Above As & When Need For Doing So May Arise. 3. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition Of 3 Rs. 2,64.19.000/- On Account Of Cash Deposits U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 4. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating That U/S 68 The Ao Is Not Required To Reject The Books Of Accounts. The Only Requirement Is That, If The Explanation Offered By The Assessee Is Not, In The Opinion Of The Assessing Officer Satisfactory, The Sum (Cash Sales) So Credited Can Be Charged To Income-Tax As The Income Of The Assessee Of That Previous Year.”

disallowed the balance of Rs. 2,64,19,000/- and added the same back under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 4 Khanna Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2017-18 3. Aggrieved with the said order passed by the ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the NFAC. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC observed that

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

133 (6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In response, all the donors accepted to have given the corpus donation to the trust. From the verification of the replies of the donors it was observed that all the donors are assessed to tax with different assessing officers as well as the donations were given through account payee cheques. Since

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

133 (6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In response, all the donors accepted to have given the corpus donation to the trust. From the verification of the replies of the donors it was observed that all the donors are assessed to tax with different assessing officers as well as the donations were given through account payee cheques. Since

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

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

SKYHIGH INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-6(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaand\Nshri, Nikhil Choudhary\Nita No. 242/Lkw/2025\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nskyhigh Infrastructures Pvt\Nltd\Nv.\Ncp-2 Ii Floor, Gomti Plaza,\Nvikas Khand, Gomti Nagar,\Nlucknow-226010.\Nincome Tax Officer-6(1)\Npratyaksh Kar Bhawan,\Nlucknow-226001.\Npan:Aatcs1687B\N(Appellant)\N(Respondent)\Nappellant By:\Nshri P. K. Kapoor, Ca\Nrespondent By:\Nshri Amit Kumar, Dr\Ndate Of Hearing:\N10 06 2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N31 07 2025\Norder\Nper Nikhil Choudhary.:\Nthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of\Nthe Learned Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi\Nu/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, For Short) Dated\N17.01.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of\Nthe Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Assessing\Nofficer U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 28.12.2019. The Grounds Of\Nappeal Are As Under: -\N“1.

section 68 of\nthe Act.\n3. 2. BECAUSE the Id. “CIT(A)” has erred in law and on facts in upholding the\naddition of Rs.1,67,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer merely on account of\nhon-response to notice u/s 133(6) by lenders of the unsecured loans even though\nappellant had duly explained nature and source thereof

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

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

133(6) were called for from the brokers as well as Commission u/s 131(1)(d) of the IT Act1961were also make an enquiry about the transaction. The brokers have furnished the copies of account of the assessee as appearing in their books of accounts. The demant accounts of the assessee have also been furnished. However, the DDIT(INV.) Mumbai

ABDUL HAMEED CHIKWA,KANPUR vs. ACIT, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals in ITA

133(6)/131 of the Act to the bank authorities as prayed by the\nassessee to verify the realization of sale proceeds of the exports made, on\nthe basis of which the deduction was claimed under section 80HHC, the\norder passed by the CIT(A) is bad in law and be quashed.\n3. Because the assessee having exported the goods

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

133(6) of The Income tax Act 1961 from Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited, Kanpur, vide its notice dated 27/02/2017, the complete reply duly confirming my transactions was received from the SHCL. The Ld. AO has also issued commissioning to Additional / Joint Director of Income Tax (Inv), 1, Kolkatta vide its letter dated 27/02/2017 under section

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