ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

51,23,920/- and based on similar reasoning as in the case of Shri Mohit Anand, the Assessing Officer proceeded to hold that the assessee had invested his own unaccounted money in the scrip Sun Asian and, therefore, the amount of Rs.2,43,02,244/- being claimed as exempt Long Term Capital Gain under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

51,23,920/- and based on similar reasoning as in the case of Shri Mohit Anand, the Assessing Officer proceeded to hold that the assessee had invested his own unaccounted money in the scrip Sun Asian and, therefore, the amount of Rs.2,43,02,244/- being claimed as exempt Long Term Capital Gain under section

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

section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for the assessment year." 6. In the present case the purported reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment were as under:- "Reasons of the belief that income has escaped Assessment. In this case the assessment for the asstt. Year 2002-03 was made

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

section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for the assessment year." 6. In the present case the purported reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment were as under:- "Reasons of the belief that income has escaped Assessment. In this case the assessment for the asstt. Year 2002-03 was made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BAREILLY vs. WAVE DISTILLERIES AND BREWERIES LIMITED, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

reassessment proceedings, it will be worthwhile to understand the factual matrix leading to the issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. As stated above, the assessment for assessment year 2013-14 was completed on 22.10.2014 by passing order under section 143(3) of the Act, wherein the returned income of the assessee was accepted. Thereafter, it was only

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

section 149 of the Act. The assessment based on illegal proceedings initiated u/s 148 is liable to be quashed. 4. Because the assessment order passed by AO, after prior approval of Range Head dated 21.03.2024 (AY 2019-20 – 22.03.2024) is not accordance with law and peculiar facts of the case and ratio laid down by Hon’ble Courts. LdCIT

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

section 149 of the Act. The assessment based on illegal proceedings initiated u/s 148 is liable to be quashed. 4. Because the assessment order passed by AO, after prior approval of Range Head dated 21.03.2024 (AY 2019-20 – 22.03.2024) is not accordance with law and peculiar facts of the case and ratio laid down by Hon’ble Courts. LdCIT

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

section 149 of the Act. The assessment based on illegal proceedings initiated u/s 148 is liable to be quashed. 4. Because the assessment order passed by AO, after prior approval of Range Head dated 21.03.2024 (AY 2019-20 – 22.03.2024) is not accordance with law and peculiar facts of the case and ratio laid down by Hon’ble Courts. LdCIT

SHANKER ENTERPRISES,KANPUR vs. DCIT-2, KANPUR, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2012-13 Shanker Enterprises V. The Dcit-2 Panki Industrial Area Kanpur Site-1, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Abffs2369Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

51,080/- 2.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed for the reason of non-compliance by the Assessee. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal

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

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

51 high denomination\nnotes of Rs.1,000/- each in January, 1946. The assessee's explanation in high\napplication for encashment of the notes was that he was a colliery proprietor and\ncontractor, that for conducting the business and for payment to labour which\ncame to about Rs.30,000/to 40,000/every week he had to keep large sums of\nmoney

SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

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

51,900/- in A/c No. 021401525367 with ICICI, Gomti Nagar c. Rs. 34,29,600/- in A/c No. 021405003554 with ICICI Bank, Gomti Nagar d. Rs. 90,81,650/- in A/c No. 07222020001730 with HDFC Bank, Hazratganj, Lucknow e. Rs. 33,000/- in A/c No. 84822200014042 with Syndicate Bank, Indira Nagar, Lucknow In response to a query regarding the source

ALLIANCE NIRMAAN LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings, since view taken by him was\none of possible views, impugned revisional order passed under section 263 was to be set\naside\nCIT Vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. [ (2010) 6 TAXMANN 15] In cases where the\nAssessing Officer adopts one of the courses permissible in law or where two views are possible\nand the Income-tax Officer

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

51 of paper book and submitted that assessee had taken unsecured loan and copy of confirmation of account, ITR, bank statement and audited balance sheet were attached. Such documents in the form of confirmation of account, ITR of the lender along with the audited financial account and copy of bank statement are placed at pages

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, 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

51 of paper book and submitted that assessee had taken unsecured loan and copy of confirmation of account, ITR, bank statement and audited balance sheet were attached. Such documents in the form of confirmation of account, ITR of the lender along with the audited financial account and copy of bank statement are placed at pages

SHASHI AGARWAL,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-1,, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

51 (Calcutta) (24) CIT vs. Fortune Vanijya (P.) Ltd. [2023] 156 taxmann.com 191 (Gauhati) (25) Sunny Jacob Jewellers vs. CIT [2024] 163 taxmann.com 722 (Kerala) (26) ACIT vs. Radha Madhav Developers [2024] 165 taxmann.com 578 (Nagpur-Trib.) (27) Shamsher Singh vs. ACIT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 11 (Chandigarh-Trib.) (28) ACIT vs. Antony Leo Sequeria [2024] 166 taxmann.com 60 (Mumbai-Trib

SHASHI AGARWAL,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

51 (Calcutta) (24) CIT vs. Fortune Vanijya (P.) Ltd. [2023] 156 taxmann.com 191 (Gauhati) (25) Sunny Jacob Jewellers vs. CIT [2024] 163 taxmann.com 722 (Kerala) (26) ACIT vs. Radha Madhav Developers [2024] 165 taxmann.com 578 (Nagpur-Trib.) (27) Shamsher Singh vs. ACIT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 11 (Chandigarh-Trib.) (28) ACIT vs. Antony Leo Sequeria [2024] 166 taxmann.com 60 (Mumbai-Trib

RAJEEV KUMAR SEHGAL,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. ITO-3(4), LAKHIMPUR KHERI-2

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2014-15 Rajeev Kumar Sehgal V. The Income Tax Officer 3(4) Punjab Colony Lakhimpur Kheri - 2 Lakhimpur Kheri Tan/Pan:Asbps5131M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

reassessment proceedings, the assessee had duly furnished copies of bank statements along with summary of the same and even proper explanations were offered, but the AO had failed to appreciate that the differential amount pertained to the amounts received as payments from debtors during the captioned assessment year. It was also submitted that since the assessee had furnished his return

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

In the result, appeals vide I

section 14A r.w.r 8D do not draw any relation to such expenditures in relation to exempt.\n\n2.\nThe Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts as the assessee invested a substantial amount of Rs.187 Cr. in group companies/sister concerns which entail disallowances to be computed as per the provision of 14A of the I.T. Act read

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

section 251 of the IT Act, 1961 by\ndirecting the Assessing Officer to verify the claim made by the\nassessee u/s 80IA which amounts to setting aside the issue\nwhich is not permissible as per provisions of the aforesaid\nsection.\n2.\nThe Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by deleting the\ndisallowance of Rs.2