MAHESH MITTAL,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-5, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshramahesh Mittal V. Acit, Range-5 1/16, Vinay Khand Gomti Income Tax Office Ashok Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Acqpm4459B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Akshay Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

Section 68 of the Act. 11)That, the Appellant craves leave to alter, amend, add or delete one or all the Grounds of appeals mentioned above.” Page 3 of 31 (B). In this case, assessment order dated 27.03.2023 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee

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)

100/- i.e. the income as per the original return of income. I.T(SS).A. Nos. 336 & 337/LKW/2025 IT(SS).A. No.334/LKW/2025 3 2.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter called “the AO”) observed that during the year, the assessee had claimed Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) exempt under section 10(38) of the Act, amounting

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)

100/- i.e. the income as per the original return of income. I.T(SS).A. Nos. 336 & 337/LKW/2025 IT(SS).A. No.334/LKW/2025 3 2.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter called “the AO”) observed that during the year, the assessee had claimed Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) exempt under section 10(38) of the Act, amounting

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)

100/- i.e. the income as per the original return of income. I.T(SS).A. Nos. 336 & 337/LKW/2025 IT(SS).A. No.334/LKW/2025 3 2.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter called “the AO”) observed that during the year, the assessee had claimed Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) exempt under section 10(38) of the Act, amounting

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 6(2), LUCKNOW vs. M/S. STATUS VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68 of the Income Tax Act which is correct and\nlawful.\n5. The assessee company being an accommodation entry provider must be\nwell aware of all the beneficiary of Rs.9.84 crore. But it disclosed only the\nname of Mahesh Chandra Agarwal Group which was beneficiary of Rs.\n3.50 crore. Therefore, it was found that assessee company to elusive\nregarding Rs.6.34

ATHLETIC STUDIO PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Athletic Studio V. The Dcit/Acit-1 Private Limited Lucknow 11-Cp/2, Ring Road Vikas Nagar, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aalca7841H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 03 2025 O R D E R

100/- should not be made under section 68 read with section 115BBE of I. T. Act. 4. The books

NEERAJ JAISWAL AND OTHERS,BAREILLY vs. ACIT-1, BAREILLY

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2020-21 & ( S.A. No.08/Lkw/2025) In Ita. No.33/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year 2020-21 Neeraj Jaiswal & Others Vs. The Acit-1 Green Park, Bareilly-243001. ‘C.R. Building’, Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Aaaan4041K (Appellant) (Respondent)

100/-. The return was initially processed under section ITA. No. 33/LKW/2025 SA No.8/LKW/2025 2 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act”) and subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny to examine- i. Stock valuation ii. High creditors/liabilities iii. Income from liquor business. 2.1 The assessee was required by the Assessing Officer (AO) from

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

Section 68 is that the assessee should file a valid confirmation. Valid confirmation has no specific format but it must contain name, complete address of the lender and PAN of the lender. The confirmation so filed must indicate complete details of transactions (like mode cash or cheque, with number date of cheque with bank details). The Assessing Officer have

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

Section 68 is that the assessee should file a valid confirmation. Valid confirmation has no specific format but it must contain name, complete address of the lender and PAN of the lender. The confirmation so filed must indicate complete details of transactions (like mode cash or cheque, with number date of cheque with bank details). The Assessing Officer have

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

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

Section 68 is that the assessee should file a valid confirmation. Valid confirmation has no specific format but it must contain name, complete address of the lender and PAN of the lender. The confirmation so filed must indicate complete details of transactions (like mode cash or cheque, with number date of cheque with bank details). The Assessing Officer have

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FAIZABAD vs. M/S JEEWANI FUELS PVT. LTD, FAIZABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed as discussed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaasstt Commissioner Of M/S. Jeewani Fuels Pvt. V. Income Tax, Circle Ltd Dcit, Circle, Faizabad, Annexe 105, Mughalpura, Hotel Krishna Palace, Civil Faizabad-224001. Lines, Faizabad-224001. Pan:Aabcj2557K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Act, though no specific provision of the Act has been mentioned by the AO in the assessment order, for the reason that the Shri Pawan Kumar Jeewani, Managing Director of the appellant-company and his family members are also directors/share holders in the three companies from which the share application money was received. The observations

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. SHRI YOGESH MULWANI, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2016-17 The Asstt. Cit V. Shri Yogesh Mulwani Range 1 36, Cantonment Road Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ahnpm4669B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Respondent By: Shri K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 19 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 06 2022 O R D E R

section 68 of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, Ground no.1 raised by the Department carries no merit. It is rejected. 10. Apropos Ground no.2, relating to deletion of disallowance of Rs.40,064/-, we find that the Assessing Officer had made ad-hoc disallowances in respect of expenses claimed by the assessee under the heads “Computer Upkeep Expenses”, Grinding Expenses”, “Motor

NAUSHEEN FARAH,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

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

section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale of securities be treated

MARGHOOB ALAM,KANPUR vs. DCUT, CC-II, KANPUR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

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

section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale of securities be treated

ZAIN ALAM,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

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

section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale of securities be treated

SHAHEEN RABIA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

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

section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale of securities be treated

NISHAT ARA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

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

section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale of securities be treated

SHRI SHIV SHANKER GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- IV(4), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2006-07

100/- u/s 68 of the I.T. Act by treating the cheque deposits in the bank account as unexplained cash credits despite the fact that the appellant does not maintain books of account and therefore, the charging of section