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

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

unexplained investments and disallowed agricultural income. The CIT(A) upheld these additions. The assessee failed to provide explanations or evidence

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

unexplained investment\nsituated u/s 69 of the Act, where such difference was below 10% of FMV\nestimated by DVO.\n\n2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,22,200/- being disallowances

HAJARIA SOFT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.74/Lkw/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Hajaria Soft Services Pvt Ltd Income Tax Officer-3(2) V. A-1462, Sec-1, Lda Colony, Lucknow-New Kanpur Road Ashiyana, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226012. 57, Ram Tirath Marg, Hazratganj, Lucknow- 226001. Pan:Aadch6101R अपीलाथ"/(Appellant) ""यथ"/(Respondent) अपीलाथ" "क और से/Appellant By: None ""यथ" "क और से /Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) आदेश / O R D E R Per Anadee Nath Misshra, A.M.: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 05/08/2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

disallowance of other expenses and of Rs 21,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69. 8. During the appeal proceedings

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

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act, where such difference was below 10% of FMV estimated by DVO. \n2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while \nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,22,200/- being disallowances

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA UP

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act, where such difference was below 10% of FMV estimated by DVO.\n2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,22,200/- being disallowances

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

disallowances of expenses\ndetermined by DVO @ Rs.91,76,800/- and amount of investment shown by\nassessee at 57, Laxmanpuri, Lucknow in relevant year as unexplained

RAHUL BAJPAI,LUCKNOW vs. AO NFAC/ITO-1, RAEBARELI

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

disallowing investment of Rs.8,45,470/- from old savings of the appellant. The addition of Rs.18,45,470/- is arbitrary and without considering full facts of the case therefore liable to be deleted. 4. Any other ground raised at the time of hearing of the appeal in accordance with law.” 2. The present appeal is barred by limitation

M/S BENARA BEARING PVT.LTD,AGRA vs. DCIT-CC-1, KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. : B.P. 1996-97 To 2002-03 M/S Benara Bearings Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income- 44/347, Bharatpur Road, Vs. Tax, Central Circle-1, Kanpur Bodla, Agra-282007 U.P. Pan:Aabcb5525F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, Advcoate Revenue By: Sh. Gayasuddin, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21.09.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

disallowance under the block assessment which were already part of the record and no evidence or material was found during search as required u/s 158BB. 8. That the Id. CIT Central as well as Id.AO erred in making addition on account of unexplained cash credit of Rs.20,00,000/-. 9. That the Id.AO has erred in making addition on account

CONCEPT CARS LIMITED,HARDOI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(2), HARDOI

In the result, the appeal in I

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowance of Rs.8,31,134/- only on surmise. I.T.A. No.182/Lkw/2020 1. That the CIT(A), Bareilly erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.15,00,000/- being advances given by the I.T.A. No.181 & 182/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2012-13 & 13-14 2 appellant as unexplained investments

CONCEPT CARS LIMITED,HARDOI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(2), HARDOI

In the result, the appeal in I

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowance of Rs.8,31,134/- only on surmise. I.T.A. No.182/Lkw/2020 1. That the CIT(A), Bareilly erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.15,00,000/- being advances given by the I.T.A. No.181 & 182/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2012-13 & 13-14 2 appellant as unexplained investments

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA UP

unexplained investment\nsituated u/s 69 of the Act, where such difference was below 10% of FMV\nestimated by DVO.\n2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,22,200/- being disallowances

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA

unexplained investment\nsituated u/s 69 of the Act, where such difference was below 10% of FMV\nestimated by DVO.\n2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,22,200/- being disallowances

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

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

disallowed the investment in fixed asset on the grounds that the\nassessee was earning huge profits and has utilized the same to purchase fixed\nassets, for the purposes of earning further profits. The ld. AR submitted, that\ncapital expenditure also allowed as application of income for charitable purposes\nduring the year under consideration. It was pointed out that

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

disallowed the investment in fixed asset on the grounds that the assessee was earning huge profits and has utilized the same to purchase fixed assets, for the purposes of earning further profits. The ld. AR submitted, that capital expenditure also allowed as application of income for charitable purposes during the year under consideration. It was pointed out that

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

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

unexplained investment AY 2012-13.\"\n\n(B.2) Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT started proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. Vide notice dated 27.02.2020, the Ld. PCIT was of the view that the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee's claim for capital gain on sale of shares of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd on face value, without independent inquiry

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

unexplained investment AY 2012-13.” (B.2) Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT started proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. Vide notice dated 27.02.2020, the Ld. PCIT was of the view that the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee’s claim for capital gain on sale of shares of M/s. Blue Circle Services Ltd on face value, without independent inquiry. The Ld. PCIT

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)

investment. ITA No.30/LKW/2023 & C.O. No.15/LKW/2023 Page 4 of 28 2.2 Further, during the course of survey, statement on oath of Dr. Sumit Malhotra had been recorded, who had stated on oath that the entries in the impounded books, marked as BK-8, BK-9, BK-10 and BBK-11, were denomination of Notes. However, the AO worked out book-wise

RANJANA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-4(3), LUCKNOW-NEW

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

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Vice President)

disallowances of Rs.5,12,625/- ignoring the audited accounts filed under section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is illegal, against the facts and inequitable. 6. Because on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the order of Assessment has been passed in absolute violation of the principles of Natural Justice, without providing adequate Opportunity