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

u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of survey carried out on assessee. In these two years, there is no issue of commission on sales and the only issue involved in these two years, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of same statement, which has been recorded u/s 133A of the Act. During assessment year

ABDUL HAMEED CHIKWA,KANPUR vs. ACIT, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals in ITA

u/s 143(3) and another against penalty proceedings\nu/s 271(1)(c), are directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner\nof Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Kanpur [hereinafter referred as to “Ld.\nCIT(A)"] dated 25.10.2016, pertaining to the assessment year\n2013-14. For the sake of convenience, these two appeals are\nhereby disposed of through this consolidated order. The assessee

ABDUL HAMEED CHIKWA,KANPUR vs. ACIT, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals in ITA

u/s 143(3) and another against penalty proceedings\nu/s 271(1)(c), are directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner\nof Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Kanpur [hereinafter referred as to “Ld.\nCIT(A)"] dated 25.10.2016, pertaining to the assessment year\n2013-14. For the sake of convenience, these two appeals are\nhereby disposed of through this consolidated order. The assessee

REETA DEVI,BANNA MAU LALGANJ RAEBARELI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, RAEBARELI

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

u/s. 69C of the Act. : Rs.8,41,179/- Total income determined : Rs.99,18,131/- ITA No.440 & 439/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 12 4. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271

REETA DEVI,BANNAMAU LALGANJ RAEBARELI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, RAEBARELI

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

u/s. 69C of the Act. : Rs.8,41,179/- Total income determined : Rs.99,18,131/- ITA No.440 & 439/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 12 4. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-V, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. PREMIER CAR SALES LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Penalty proceedings is initiated and notice u/s 271(1)(c) is being issued separately for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.” 4.1 The above findings of the Assessing Officer clearly demonstrate that Assessing Officer has made the addition on the basis of directions of Addl. CIT, Range-5, Lucknow and has not examined anything at his own. The Assessing Officer

SHRI ABDUR RASHID,ALIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

penalty of Rs.6,32,496 u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act,1961. (2) Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not giving proper opportunity of being heard. (3) Because the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice. 4. The brief facts of the quantum appeal in ITA No.145/LKW/2018 are that

SHRI ABDUR RASHID,ALIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CIRCLE, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

penalty of Rs.6,32,496 u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act,1961. (2) Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not giving proper opportunity of being heard. (3) Because the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice. 4. The brief facts of the quantum appeal in ITA No.145/LKW/2018 are that

GAGAN PREET KAUR VIRDI,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-6(2), LUCKNOW-NEW

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

131(1A) of the Act, as per mandate of sub-section (3) of section 142 of the Act. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID 5. BECAUSE the ld."CIT(A)" has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.1,25,00,000/- made by Assessing Officer by erroneously treating the loan received by the appellant from

ABSAR AHMAD,SITAPUR vs. ITO, SITAPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2015-16 Absar Ahmad V. The Income Tax Officer S/O Ameer Ahmad Sitapur H.No.131, Godhana Anshik Sidhauli, Sitapur Tan/Pan:Akapa4017F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 11 2024 O R D E R

131, Godhana Anshik Sidhauli, Sitapur TAN/PAN:AKAPA4017F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri Manu Chaurasia, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 18 11 2024 Date of pronouncement: 19 11 2024 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 10.06.2024, passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. M/S. HABIB TANNERY PRIVATE LIMITED, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S Habib Tannery Pvt. Ltd. Tax-6 15-B, 150 Ft. Road Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aach4129E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri H. S. Usmani, Cit (Dr) O R D E R

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2.3 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, sustaining the addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and deleting the addition of Rs.3,81,68,114/-. 2.4 Now, the Revenue has approached this Tribunal challenging the impugned order

SHRI SWATANTRA KUMAR SHUKLA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Swatantra Kumar Shukla, Vs. Dy. Cit-3, Kanpur 61/139, Sita Ram Mohal, Kanpur- 208001 (U.P.) Pan: Acaps5484N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 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)- 1, Kanpur, Passed On 29.07.2019 Wherein The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 29.12.2017 Has Been Dismissed. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That The Ld Cit(A) Was Wrong In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,39,81,850- Made By The Ao Without Any Valid Reason. 2. That The Revenue Was Wrong In Disallowing The Claim Of Long Term Capital Gains U/S 10(38) Of The Act & The Same Is Against Facts & Law. 3. That The Various Case Law Cited By The Revenue In Rejecting The Claim Is Wrong In As Much As The Facts Of The Appellant'S Case Are Distinguishable From The Cited Case Law. 4. That The Revenue Was Wrong In Invoking Section 68 Of The Act & The Same Is Not Justified & Unwarranted. 5. That It Was Wrong On The Part Of Revenue To Invoke Section 68 Of The Act In As Much As Initial Onus On The Assessee To Establish Identity, Credit Capacity Of The Creditor & Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Discharged. 6. That The Finding Of The Ld Ao That 'Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.1 39,81,850/ Claimed By The Assessee Is Held To Have Been Arranged By The Assessee Through

u/s 10(38) of the Act and the same is against facts and law. 3. That the various case law cited by the Revenue in rejecting the claim is wrong in as much as the facts of the appellant's case are distinguishable from the cited case law. 4. That the Revenue was wrong in invoking section

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

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 report dt. 14/06/2024. The relevant para of Assessment Order is as under: 7. During the year under consideration, the assessee was found to have purchased

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

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 report dt. 14/06/2024. The relevant para of Assessment Order is as under: 7. During the year under consideration, the assessee was found to have purchased

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

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 report dt. 14/06/2024. The relevant para of Assessment Order is as under: 7. During the year under consideration, the assessee was found to have purchased

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there is no parameter that

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there is no parameter that

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there is no parameter that

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

section 12AA of the Act, which would be very much indifference to the intention of the legislature. In fact, the assessee authority is working on commercial pattern like a big Page 47 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) businessman. Even otherwise, if some plots are reserved for economically weaker sections of the society, firstly, there is no parameter that