M/S. MAA RAKLTDANTIKA CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT/ACIT, RANGE-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

10.]” The “head note” for section 68 is "cash credits". The fundamental intent of the section is that

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. MOTOR FAB SALES PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, Departmental appeal bearing

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit/Acit-4 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Lucknow Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Theacit-1 V. M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Shri H.S. Usmani, Cit(Dr)

10,000.00 G Unexplained cash deposit out of 17,50,26,651.00 bogus cash receipts 2.1 The AO, accordingly, completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) by making addition of Rs.17,50,26,650/- under section 68

M/S. MOTOR FAB SALES PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT/ACIT-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, Departmental appeal bearing

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit/Acit-4 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Lucknow Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Theacit-1 V. M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Shri H.S. Usmani, Cit(Dr)

10,000.00 G Unexplained cash deposit out of 17,50,26,651.00 bogus cash receipts 2.1 The AO, accordingly, completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) by making addition of Rs.17,50,26,650/- under section 68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW., LUCKNOW. vs. M/S. MG AUTOSALES PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW.

The appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshradcit, Circle-1 M/S. Mg Autosales Pvt Ltd V. Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57, 3/44 Ambalika, Gokhale Ramtirath Marg, Lucknow- Vihar Marg, Lucknow- 226001. 226001. Pan:Aamcs0717R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashok Seth, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11 12 2024 O R D E R

section 68 is deleted by the Ld CIT (A) stating the issue of double addition and by also claiming that the A.O. has accepted books of account. It is to be noted that, as clearly mentioned in the Para 10 of the assessment

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

section 10 were not served on the principal officer of the company. However, the ld. CIT(A) turned down this ground of appeal by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT-1, Ahmedabad vs. Bhanji Kanji Shop 68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT ,, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Cit (Exemptions) V. M/S Indian Institute Of Management Lucknow Lucknow Off Sitapur Road, Prabandh Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaati2622Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S. K. Madhuk, Cit (Dr) Respondent By: Shri Ashish Kapoor, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 20 08 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 08 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Revenue’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Lucknow, Dated 8/5/2018, For The Assessment Year 2010-11, Taking The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee & Deleting The Addition Of Rs.4,05,76,925/- Made On Account Of The Assessee Had Not Maintained Separate Books Of Accounts In Respect Of The Business Activities, Which Are Not Incidental To The Objectives Of The Society. 2. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Following Other Year'S Appellate Order & Thereby

68,282/-. AO disallowed exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) on the said income for the reason that appellant filed to apply ad invest or deposits its income in accordance with provisions of (a) and (b) of third provision of section

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

10(20), would make no difference for the reason, if these authorities satisfy requirement of Section 12A(1), then are entitled for registration after following procedure laid down under Section 12AA. A mere wrong claim on the part of these authorities will not be of any disadvantage to them. 67. The consideration on the part

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

10(20), would make no difference for the reason, if these authorities satisfy requirement of Section 12A(1), then are entitled for registration after following procedure laid down under Section 12AA. A mere wrong claim on the part of these authorities will not be of any disadvantage to them. 67. The consideration on the part

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

10(20), would make no difference for the reason, if these authorities satisfy requirement of Section 12A(1), then are entitled for registration after following procedure laid down under Section 12AA. A mere wrong claim on the part of these authorities will not be of any disadvantage to them. 67. The consideration on the part

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

10(38) of the Act in relation to Long Term Capital Gain accruing to her on sale of shares in Gold Line International Finvest Ltd. (Rs.24,09,657/-) and Kappac Pharma Ltd. (Rs.7,77,391/-) and in adding the aggregate sum of Rs.31,87,048/- to the income of the "appellant" as unexplained credit under section 68

TACK EXIM PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE2(3)(1), KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Tack Exim Pvt. Limited V. Asstt. Commissioner Of 11/18-A, Pokharpur Income Tax, Jajmau, Kanpur Circle 2(3)(1), Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aadct7929D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 11 2024 O R D E R

section 68 of the Act would not be applicable at all. ITA No.324/LKW/2024 Page 9 of 21 5.3 The Ld. A.R. also submitted that the assessee has filed complete details of cash for the period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 before the AO and no discrepancy has been found or pointed out by the AO, but the same has been rejected

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is held to be partly allowed

section 10 were not served on the principal officer of the\ncompany. However, the ld. CIT(A) turned down this ground of appeal by relying\nupon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT-1, Ahmedabad\nvs. Bhanji Kanji Shop 68

ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), KANPUR, KANPUR vs. KHANNA SALES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Ito, Vs. Khanna Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(3)(1), Kanpur 54/34, Nayaganj, Kanpur Pan: Aabck4442N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Swarn Singh, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) For The A.Y. 2017- 18 On 29.12.2019. The Grounds Of The Appeal Are As Under: - “1- Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating The Pattern Of Cash Sales Discussed By The Assessing Officer In Detail In His Order Which Shows A Substantial Jump Of 38% Of Total Sales In The Month Of October, 2016 I.E. The Period Immediately Prior To Demonetization In November, 2016. Cash Sales Before & After This Period Is Negligible. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend Any One Or More Of The Grounds Of Appeal As Stated Above As & When Need For Doing So May Arise. 3. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition Of 3 Rs. 2,64.19.000/- On Account Of Cash Deposits U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 4. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating That U/S 68 The Ao Is Not Required To Reject The Books Of Accounts. The Only Requirement Is That, If The Explanation Offered By The Assessee Is Not, In The Opinion Of The Assessing Officer Satisfactory, The Sum (Cash Sales) So Credited Can Be Charged To Income-Tax As The Income Of The Assessee Of That Previous Year.”

section 68 of such cash sales would amount to double taxation. In the case of J.R. Rice India P. Ltd. vs. 10 Khanna

SMT. SABREEN,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed and Stay Application is dismissed as infructuous

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

10(38) of the Act. He inter alia concluded that the assessee had adopted a colorable device of LTCG to avoid tax and accordingly framed the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act at the total income of Rs. 1,09,12,060/-, making an addition of Rs. 96,75,939/- under Section 68

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)

10(38) of the Act was not a genuine claim and that the capital gains claimed as exempt were to be I.T(SS).A. Nos. 336 & 337/LKW/2025 IT(SS).A. No.334/LKW/2025 4 treated as unaccounted money of the assessee and were to be added to the income of the assessee under section 68

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. MOHIT 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)

10(38) of the Act was not a genuine claim and that the capital gains claimed as exempt were to be I.T(SS).A. Nos. 336 & 337/LKW/2025 IT(SS).A. No.334/LKW/2025 4 treated as unaccounted money of the assessee and were to be added to the income of the assessee under section 68

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)

10(38) of the Act was not a genuine claim and that the capital gains claimed as exempt were to be I.T(SS).A. Nos. 336 & 337/LKW/2025 IT(SS).A. No.334/LKW/2025 4 treated as unaccounted money of the assessee and were to be added to the income of the assessee under section 68

UP GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.743 & 746/Lkw/2024 & Ita No. 30/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Vs. Assessing Officer, Nfac Welfare, Lucknow Pan:Aaatu0957A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 23.10.2024, 28.10.2024 & 2.01.2024 In The Appeals Preferred Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3), The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aac(1) & The Penalty Order Under Section 270A. The Grounds Of Appeal In These Three Appeals Are As Under:-

68 of the Act. The ld. AO records that despite issue of notices, the assessee did not respond to the notices and was non-responsive. Therefore, quoting from the provisions of section 271AAC(1), the ld. AO on 15.03.2022, levied a penalty of Rs.1,14,62,773/- @ 10% of the unexplained