M/S STANDARD FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT LTD,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

unexplained credit received by the assessee under section 68 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 3. The assessee filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of the AO dated 28th December, 2017 before CIT(A). The assessee raised a specific ground that the assessment with respect to the AY 2011-12 stood

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 credit received by the assessee under section 68 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 3. The assessee filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of the AO dated 28th December, 2017 before CIT(A). The assessee raised a specific ground that the assessment with respect to the AY 2011-12 stood

SACHIN 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 credit received by the assessee under section 68 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 3. The assessee filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of the AO dated 28th December, 2017 before CIT(A). The assessee raised a specific ground that the assessment with respect to the AY 2011-12 stood

VIVEK DIXIT,KANPUR vs. ACIT-CC-2, KANPUR

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

house property,\nbusiness & profession from M/s Sagar Medical Store besides income from\nother sources in the form of interest. On total turnover of Rs.2,27,99, 1281,\ngross profit of Rs.18,90,924/- has been disclosed, giving a GP rate of\n8.29%.\nDuring the year under consideration, the assessee, raised unsecured loans\nof Rs.5,00,000/- each from Shri Raman

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

property was converted into freehold through registered deed on 24/10/2017. During the assessment proceeding of AY 2014-15, AO has referred the valuation of said property u/s 50C/142A in response to which Valuation Officer, Allahabad has estimated the FMV of lease property as on 04/10/2013 at Rs. 43,46,000/- against actual consideration of Rs. 31,45,000/- vide valuation

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

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

property was converted into freehold through registered deed on 24/10/2017. During the assessment proceeding of AY 2014-15, AO has referred the valuation of said property u/s 50C/142A in response to which Valuation Officer, Allahabad has estimated the FMV of lease property as on 04/10/2013 at Rs. 43,46,000/- against actual consideration of Rs. 31,45,000/- vide valuation

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

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

property was converted into freehold through registered deed on 24/10/2017. During the assessment proceeding of AY 2014-15, AO has referred the valuation of said property u/s 50C/142A in response to which Valuation Officer, Allahabad has estimated the FMV of lease property as on 04/10/2013 at Rs. 43,46,000/- against actual consideration of Rs. 31,45,000/- vide valuation

KARUNESH KUMAR SHUKLA,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), LUCKNOW

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

unexplained investment, when he had himself recorded the fact that the assessee had received money for the sale of immovable property. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee had made a fresh claim before the ld. CIT(A) pointing out that the assessee had not claimed deduction in respect of his share of construction in the new house

RAM NATH JAISWAL,FAIZABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes while the Stay application is held to be allowed

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

unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act and brought the same to tax under section 115BBE. The ld. AO also noted that the assessee had made an investment of Rs. 2,72,32,982/- in the purchase of immovable property during the assessment year 2018-19. He asked the assessee to explain the sources thereof. After considering

SARALA SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 4(3), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2021-22 Sarala Singh V. Income Tax Officer 4(3) 567/206A, Old Jail Road Lucknow Anand Nagar Alambagh, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Cqfbs2682M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 01 2025 O R D E R

property for Rs.66,00,000/-, did not draw any adverse inference. However, not being convinced with the reply of the assessee regarding the cash deposits of Rs.33,00,000/-, the AO treated the same as unexplained money of the assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. The AO, accordingly, completed

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

PRECIOUS BJUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, , BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.66/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Precious Buildtech Pvt Ltd V. Pcit Harmony Apartment, Adiacent Income Tax Department, To Bedi International School, Bareilly-243001. Dental College Road, Pilibhit Bypass Road, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aagcp1255R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Mazhar Akram, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 09 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

house property”. (v) Besides, being the demonetization assessment year, the AO was required to examine the genuineness of the source of the cash deposits in old SBNSs, if any. CBDT vide internal guidance note for assistance of AOs for verification of cash deposits and framing of assessments in demonetization related cases dated: 13.06.2019 (F.No. 225/145/2019- ITA-II) has issued approach

PURSHOTTAM NARAIN SHUKLA,UNNAO vs. ITO WARD -2(4), UNNAO-NEW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriapurshottam Narain Shukla Income Tax Officer, V. Ward-2(4) 2/63 Kanchan Nagar, Shuklaganj, Unnao, Uttar Makhi House, Civil Lines, Pradesh-209801. Unnao, Uttar Pradesh- 209801. Pan:Axnps4591E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri. P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16 10 2024 O R D E R

house property besides agriculture income. The AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on a total income of 56,48,770/- by making an addition of Rs.51,00,000/- u/s 69A, read with Section 115BBE of the Act, treating the unexplained money

SIDDHARTH MAHENDRA,C/O SANJAY SAXENA,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. ITO, HARDOI

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year 2017-18 Siddharth Mahendra, Vs. Income Tax Officer-3(3), C/O Sanjay Saxena, Hardoi 12, Pratap Enclave, Bisrat G.T. Road, Lucknow. Pan –Alhpm 6198B (Appellant) (Respondent)

house property and income 2 from other sources. The assessee had e-filed his return of income on 12.09.2017 declaring total income at Rs.3,34,630/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) was issued and served upon the assessee. The 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

House (supra) and the Hon'ble Gujarat\nHigh Court in the case of Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. (supra),\nHence, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.\nCIT(A) and the same is upheld.\n\n5.)\nPradeep kumar Vs ACIT-1 ITA No.198/LKW/2024held\nin para 13 as under\n\n13.In other cases also

URMILA MISHRA,KANPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(5), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Urmila Mishra V. The Income Tax Officer E-1/186, Kda Colony Ward 1(1)(5) Dheli Sujanpur, Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Bndpm1858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 04 2025 O R D E R

house property at Rs.4,91,628/- and income from other sources at Rs.26,933/-. After initially processing of the return under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’), the case was selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS for the reason of – (1) large investment in property and (2) large value of cash deposits during

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

House Property and Other sources. The assessee filed her return of income for the year under consideration on 17.03.2016, declaring a total income of Rs.10,76,040/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the reason of suspicious sale transactions in shares and exempt Long Term Capital Gains shown in the return of income. During

SANGEETA PANDEY,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(4),, LUCKNOW-NEW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Sangeeta Pandey V. The Income Tax Officer House No.88, Majra Andandlok-Ii Ward 1(4) Ganeshpur, Rashmanpur Lucknow - New Chinhat, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Bqepp1354H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vivek Tiwari, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04 12 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.07.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Notice Under Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’), Requiring The Assessee To File The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. However, The Assessee Did Not File The Return Of Income. The Ao Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish Various Details Required For Completing The Assessment. However, There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The Assessee. The Ao, Therefore, Proceeded To Complete The Assessment Under

House No.88, Majra Andandlok-II Ward 1(4) Ganeshpur, Rashmanpur Lucknow - New Chinhat, Lucknow TAN/PAN:BQEPP1354H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Vivek Tiwari, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date of hearing: 02 12 2024 Date of pronouncement: 04 12 2024 O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated

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