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)

demonetization year i.e. 31.03.2017, total cash receipts shown by appellant are much more than the cash receipts found in these impounded material. Therefore the conclusion of Ld. AO that the entire amount reflected in these impounded annexures was unaccounted is baseless and hence the same is hereby discarded. 6.12 Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case addition

TAFSEER AHMAD,LUCKNOW vs. DDIT/ADIT(INTL TAX)LKN, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

house property and from other sources. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. During the course of assessment proceedings, while going through the bank statements, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer (AO) that the assessee had made cash deposits ITA(IT) No.517/LKW/2025 Page 2 of 8 of Rs.14,44,000/- in his bank account No.126301075021

PRADEEP KUMAR,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Pradeep Kumar V. The Acit-1 A-1/46, Vikas Khand Lucknow Gomti Nagar Lucknow Pan:Ablpk8392B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Prakash Agrawal, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04 09 2024 O R D E R

house property at Rs.2,52,000/-, income from other sources (being interest) at Rs.17,20,261/- and long term capital gain at Rs.5,90,244/-. On the total turnover of Rs.31,47,84,794/-, assessee declared gross profit at Rs.1,97,08,882/- and net profit at Rs.1,60,82,364/-. The ITA No.198/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 13 Assessing Officer

KASHI NATH SETH SARRAF PRIVATE LIMITED,HARDOI vs. ACIT, SITAPUR, SITAPUR

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

property; if the assessee had not\nattended to them in the charged and desperate atmosphere prevailing after\nannouncement of demonetization. He further submitted that some\ncustomers had made cash purchases exceeding Rs.2,00,000/-, making them\nliable for penalty u/s 271DA of the Act (for contravention of section 269ST\nof the Act), as pointed out by the learned D.R. from

DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. M/S SHREE PATESHWARI ELECTRICALS AND ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2017-18

demonetization period. The fact that cash sales and cash deposit are regular feature of the Appellant's business has not been controverted by the Assessing Officer. The Appellant maintains regular books of accounts which are audited by the Independent Auditor under the Companies Act 2013 as well as under the Income Tax Act 1961. The sales and the corresponding cash

AYYUB JAFRI,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW

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

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

demonetization period was not relevant to the financial year under scrutiny. The ld. AO seems to have not made any further addition on this account. 7. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee went in appeal to the NFAC. The Hon’ble CIT(A) records that he issued as many as eleven notices to the assessee to submit details

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

demonetization period.\nii) AO did not enquire about the details of license issued to him for the\ntrading of liquor.\niii) AO did not examine about genuineness and creditworthiness of the\npersons who had id given given unsecured unsecured loans of Rs.2.99\ncrores to the assessee. Further, no enquiry were made by the AO\nregarding the genuineness and correctness

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

demonetization period had rightly been added back to the income of the assessee. On the disallowance of expenditure to the extent of Rs.6,77,19,543/-, she observed that the assessee was required to furnish various A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 details along with copies of bills and vouchers relating to such expenses during the assessment proceedings, but had only

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

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

demonetization period had rightly been added back to the\nincome of the assessee. On the disallowance of expenditure to the extent of\nRs.6,77,19,543/-, she observed that the assessee was required to furnish various\ndetails along with copies of bills and vouchers relating to such expenses during\nthe assessment proceedings, but had only furnished copies of ledger accounts