KAMAL KANT VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

unexplained money. 4. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.13,02,580/- on account of unsecured loan u/s 68 of the IT Act. 5. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance

VIKAS SINGH ,PILIBHIT vs. ITO, PILIBHIT

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

unexplained money in the hands of the assessee and added the same to his total income for the year under section 69A, thereby bring it to tax under the special provisions of section 115BBE. Besides this, he also made a disallowance

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

unexplained money through UL channel is untenable. 2. As regards credit worthiness of lenders, all the documents related to their financial strength and transactions executed Page 4 of 23 I.T.A.No.170/Lkw/2020 C.O.No.17/Lkw/2023 from bank accounts were produced before the Assessing Officer, which he refused to entertain and take on records. All the relevant documents are being produced herewith

ARUN KUMAR TANDON,LUCKNOW vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Arun Kumar Tandon V. Ito-4(1) Rama Niwas Lucknow New 15, A.P. Sen Road Charbagh, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Acept6448J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 02 2025 O R D E R

unexplained money and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. 2.2 The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, computing the income of the assessee as under: Returned income as per ITR : Rs.4,45,110/- Addition u/s. 69A of the Act : Rs.2,23,500/- Addition

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

In the result, appeals vide I

disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was made\nsolely on the basis of investment by Assessee Company in SPVs without\nverifying objects of investment and understanding of relevant provision of law.\nIt is also submitted that section 14A carries heading 'Expenditure\nincurred in relation to income not includible in total income'\n\nAs per Section

GURDAS MAL ARORA,KANPUR vs. THE A O CIRCLE-1(2)(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshragurdas Mal Arora V. The Assessing Officer, 21/L/4, Daboli, Circle-1(2)(1) Kanpur. 16/69, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Afepm4342J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit-Dr O R D E R

disallowances made purely on the basis of assumption and presumption which is unjustified.” (C.2) At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the aforesaid written submissions and on the aforesaid paper book referred to in foregoing paragraph no. (C) and (C.1) of this order. The Ld. Departmental Representative for Revenue supported the impugned order

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. MEDHRAJ TECHNO CONCEPT PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

The appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Asstt. Commissioner Of V. Medhraj Techno Concept Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax G-05, Sky Hi Chambers, Park Road, Range – 1 Hazratganj Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aafcm1276N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, D.R. O R D E R

disallowance of Rs. 9,34,866/- claimed by the assessee as expenses towards Corporate Social Responsibility . 3. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the ld. First Appellate Authority challenging the addition. The assessee’s appeal was allowed by the ld. First Appellate Authority by making the following observations: “5. The appellant has raised seven grounds of appeal through it has mainly objected

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

unexplained money in the garb of donation is based on her finding that the aforesaid Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society was also running educational institutions and according to the Assessing Officer, the aforesaid Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society should have rather spent the fund to develop the infrastructure of its own institute. There is no adverse comment in the assessment order

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

unexplained money in the garb of donation is based on her finding that the aforesaid Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society was also running educational institutions and according to the Assessing Officer, the aforesaid Anandilal & Ganesh Podar Society should have rather spent the fund to develop the infrastructure of its own institute. There is no adverse comment in the assessment order

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)

unexplained money of the assessee. 2.3 The AO further noticed that the assessee had failed to deposit the sum of Rs.1,12,102/- deducted from the salary of its employees in respect of Provident Fund and ESI within the due date. The AO, treated the same as income of the assessee under section

MOHD. AYAZ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, from the final computation of income, it is not seen that the ld. AO actually made any such addition. Thereafter, the ld. AO turned his focus to purchases made by the assessee. The assessee claimed to have made purchases of cattle to the tune

ACIT-3, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. HARSHIT GARG, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Acit, Lucknow Vs. Harshit Garg, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57-Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aiopg3763A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.25/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Harshit Garg, Vs. Acit, Lucknow Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57- Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aiopg3763A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akshay Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 17.06.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao

money into gold and this also offered the opportunity to businessmen, having unaccounted SBNs in their possession, to bring the same into the books of accounts by reporting sales / realizations from sales in the period prior to demonetization. The ld. Assessing Officer noted that the earliest intimation required to be filed with regard to sales was before the VAT authorities

M/S SHIVANSH INFRAESTATE PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Block-A, Surajdeep Income Tax, Range-6, 3Rd Floor, Complex, 1-Jopling Road, 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001 P.K. Complex, Lucknow Pan: Aaqcs5896P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 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), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 30.12.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1- The Ld. Cit (A) Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Ground That Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito-6(1) Lucknow On 01.04.2016 Without Appreciating That Jurisdiction Of Case Lies With Dcit, Range-6, Lucknow, Hence The Notice Issued By Ito-6(1) Is Without Jurisdiction & Invalid. Further, No Notice U/S 143(2) Has Been Issued By Jurisdictional Dcit, Range-Vi, Lucknow Within The Period As Per Section 143(2) Of L. T. Act. Hence The Present Assessment Is Invalid, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2- The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Upheld The Addition Without Appreciating That Ld. A. O. Rejected The Books Of Account & Instead Of Estimating The Net Profit, Additions Were Made On The Basis Of Same Books Of Account By Disallowing Expenses Under Different Heads Total Rs. 1,75,91,607/- & Addition U/S 68 R. W. S. 115Bbe Of I. T. Act For Rs. 1,32,78,833/- Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law.

unexplained cash and added back under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The ld. AO also observed from the balance-sheet, that the assessee had shown advances from customers against plots and flat booking at Rs. 8,56,22,259/- and asked the assessee to give the complete postal addresses of parties from whom advances / deposits had been taken

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2), LUCKNOW vs. M/S DEV BHOOMI PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2012-13

disallowing the same is that the investors in their books of account had classified investment in the assessee company as unsecured loans. In our opinion, such classification made by the investor company, in their books of account, does not alter the nature of transactions which clearly is share application money as is evident from the copy of share application forms

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S SHRI RAMSWAROOP CHARITABLE TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Y. 2013-14

unexplained credit. It was further argued that against the addition of Rs.8,57,31,152/- the assessee could produce ledger account and vouchers for Rs.7,69,08,761/- only. 6. As regards Ground No.4, the ld. DR stated that the Assessing Officer had made the disallowance on account of personal expenses as the assessee was not able to produce proper

MAHESH MITTAL,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-5, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshramahesh Mittal V. Acit, Range-5 1/16, Vinay Khand Gomti Income Tax Office Ashok Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Acqpm4459B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Akshay Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

unexplained. Moreover, the assessee’s claim for payment of interest of the aforesaid loans amounting to Rs.1,50,337/- paid aforesaid loans amounting to Rs.1,31,00,000/- was also disallowed. The assessee’s appeal in the office of the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 02.01.2023; the relevant portion

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

disallowed the same and had made the additions u/s 69A of the Act which the ld. CIT(A) has deleted by ignoring the phenomenon of arrangement of dubious transactions. It was submitted that before Assessing Officer the assessee stated that he had not undertaken any trading activity in shares and in this respect invited my attention to page

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

disallowed the same and had made the additions u/s 69A of the Act which the ld. CIT(A) has deleted by ignoring the phenomenon of arrangement of dubious transactions. The ld. AR on the other hand submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer by holding that the Assessing Officer has not carried