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

68 of IT Act. On these confirmations filed appellant provided the current and latest address of the lender to the AO whereas AO got the verification done at old addresses in Kolkata by issuing a commission u/s 131(l)(d) to the Kolkata Investigation Wing on 27.02.2018 to submit a report on following points: 1. Identity, genuineness of the transactions

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)

105, Mughalpura, Hotel Krishna Palace, Civil Faizabad-224001. Lines, Faizabad-224001. PAN:AABCJ2557K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Mahendra Kumar, C.A Respondent by: Shri Manu Chaurasia, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 05 11 2024 Date of pronouncement: 11 11 2024 O R D E R PER SUBHASH MALGURIA, J.M.: This is an appeal preferred by the revenue against the impugned

DEVIKA SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Devika Singh V. The Income Tax Officer 1(1) B-1529, Indira Nagar Lucknow - New Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Cmips8743J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sandeep Kumar, Fca Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Because the learned CIT(A), NFAC ought to have deleted the tax charged u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Because the Id. CIT(A), NFAC ought not to have confirmed the action of learned assessing officer to treat cash deposit in bank accounts of Rs.13

KAMALUDDIN,BARABANKI vs. ITO-5(4), BARABANKI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 Kamaluddin V. Income Tax Officer 5(4) 339, Satbarpur Barabanki Zaminhusainbad, Subeha Barabanki Tan/Pan:Dlvpk2157M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 01 2025 O R D E R

68,105/- as the unexplained cash credit of the assessee and added the same to the income of the assessee. 2.1. The AO also noticed that during the year under consideration, the assessee had received commission/brokerage to the tune of Rs.38,947/- from various entities. Since the assessee had failed to furnish any documentary evidence with ITA No.574/LKW/2024 Page

ARUN KUMAR MAURYA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

105 (All) "10. Section 292BB of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2008 with effect from April 1, 2008. Section 292BB of the Act provides a deeming fiction. The deeming fiction is to the effect that once the assessee has appeared in any proceeding or cooperated in any enquiry relating to an assessment or reassessment

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

section 132(4) of the Act on 3rd August, 2015 and letter dated 31st July, 2015 issued by Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal. The case was centralised as per the orders passed under section 127 of the Act and a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 6th September, 2016, which was duly served. Upon

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

section 132(4) of the Act on 3rd August, 2015 and letter dated 31st July, 2015 issued by Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal. The case was centralised as per the orders passed under section 127 of the Act and a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 6th September, 2016, which was duly served. Upon

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

section 132(4) of the Act on 3rd August, 2015 and letter dated 31st July, 2015 issued by Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal. The case was centralised as per the orders passed under section 127 of the Act and a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 6th September, 2016, which was duly served. Upon

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(FORMERLY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),AYODHYA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

105/- made by applying the provisions of section 11(6) of Income-tax Act when more than 85% of income was utilized without considering the depreciation as application of funds. 10. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing assessment order which is contrary to the facts

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

105/- made by applying the provisions of section \n11(6) of Income-tax Act when more than 85% of income was utilized without considering \nthe depreciation as application of funds. \n10. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing \nassessment order which is contrary to the facts

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

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

section 143(3) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee's\ntotal income was determined at Rs.37,89,155/- (Rounded off to\nRs.37,89,160/-) as against the returned income of\nRs.15,29,020/-. In the aforesaid assessment order an amount of\nRs.20,00,000/- was added u/s 69A of the Act. A further

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

68,254/- 18,39,650/- Addition on account of depreciation 5,61,657/- Total income (rounded off) 24,01,310/- 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority challenging the initiation of re- ITA No.360, 361 & 362/LKW/2020 Page 3 of 24 assessment proceedings as well as challenging the additions/disallowances on merits. However, the appeal before

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

68,254/- 18,39,650/- Addition on account of depreciation 5,61,657/- Total income (rounded off) 24,01,310/- 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority challenging the initiation of re- ITA No.360, 361 & 362/LKW/2020 Page 3 of 24 assessment proceedings as well as challenging the additions/disallowances on merits. However, the appeal before

M/S. BARROWS BLUE BELLS SCHOOL,BAHARAICH vs. THE I.T.O. (E), LUCKNOW

68,254/-\n18,39,650/-\nAddition on account of depreciation\n5,61,657/-\nTotal income (rounded off)\n24,01,310/-\n2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the\nLd. First Appellate Authority challenging the initiation of reassessment\nproceedings as well as challenging the\nadditions/disallowances on merits. However, the appeal before\nthe Ld. First Appellate Authority came to be dismissed

ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR vs. TABREZ ALAM, KANPUR

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed, whereas the five Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Tabrez Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0261A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.06/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.233/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tabrez Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Aarpa0261A (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Mehtab Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0259L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.07/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.234/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mehtab Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Bezps4971J

68,37,600/- levied u/s 271AAB(1A) cannot be sustained. Hence the same is deleted and relief is allowed to the appellant.” ITA No.233, 234, 235, 236 & 237/LKW/2022 C.O. No.06, 07, 08, 09 & 10/LKW/2023 Page 11 of 13 11.3 During the course of proceedings before us, although the ld. CIT(D.R.) has argued vehemently against the relief given

ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR vs. MEHTAB ALAM, KANPUR

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed, whereas the five Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Tabrez Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0261A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.06/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.233/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tabrez Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Aarpa0261A (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Mehtab Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0259L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.07/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.234/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mehtab Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Bezps4971J

68,37,600/- levied u/s 271AAB(1A) cannot be sustained. Hence the same is deleted and relief is allowed to the appellant.” ITA No.233, 234, 235, 236 & 237/LKW/2022 C.O. No.06, 07, 08, 09 & 10/LKW/2023 Page 11 of 13 11.3 During the course of proceedings before us, although the ld. CIT(D.R.) has argued vehemently against the relief given

ASSTT.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR vs. SHAHEEN RABIA, KANPUR

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed, whereas the five Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Tabrez Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0261A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.06/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.233/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tabrez Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Aarpa0261A (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Mehtab Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0259L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.07/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.234/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mehtab Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Bezps4971J

68,37,600/- levied u/s 271AAB(1A) cannot be sustained. Hence the same is deleted and relief is allowed to the appellant.” ITA No.233, 234, 235, 236 & 237/LKW/2022 C.O. No.06, 07, 08, 09 & 10/LKW/2023 Page 11 of 13 11.3 During the course of proceedings before us, although the ld. CIT(D.R.) has argued vehemently against the relief given

ASSTT.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR vs. ZAINA FATIMA AHMAD, KANPUR

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed, whereas the five Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Tabrez Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0261A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.06/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.233/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tabrez Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Aarpa0261A (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Mehtab Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0259L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.07/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.234/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mehtab Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Bezps4971J

68,37,600/- levied u/s 271AAB(1A) cannot be sustained. Hence the same is deleted and relief is allowed to the appellant.” ITA No.233, 234, 235, 236 & 237/LKW/2022 C.O. No.06, 07, 08, 09 & 10/LKW/2023 Page 11 of 13 11.3 During the course of proceedings before us, although the ld. CIT(D.R.) has argued vehemently against the relief given

ASSTT. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR vs. ZAIN ALAM, KANPUR

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed, whereas the five Cross Objections filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Tabrez Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0261A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.06/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.233/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tabrez Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Aarpa0261A (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. Mehtab Alam Central Circle – 2 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Kanpur Compound Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aarpa0259L (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.07/Lkw/2023 [In Ita No.234/Lkw/2022] Assessment Year: 2019-20 Mehtab Alam V. The Acit 16B/4E, Sultan Tanners Central Circle – 2 Compound Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan: Bezps4971J

68,37,600/- levied u/s 271AAB(1A) cannot be sustained. Hence the same is deleted and relief is allowed to the appellant.” ITA No.233, 234, 235, 236 & 237/LKW/2022 C.O. No.06, 07, 08, 09 & 10/LKW/2023 Page 11 of 13 11.3 During the course of proceedings before us, although the ld. CIT(D.R.) has argued vehemently against the relief given