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

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

VINAI SHUKLA,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW NEW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.624/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vinai Shukla V. Acit-1, Lucknow New 2/280, Vikas Khand Gomti Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Asnps3558C अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Ms Shweta Mittal, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Prajesh Srivastava, Sr. Dr सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21 08 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 12 09 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

68,000/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain and assessed total income at Rs.1,41,36,990/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee carried the matter an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The assessee has taken multiples grounds

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 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

BINDU KUMAR,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-1(1), LUCKNOW-NEW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

68 of the Act and he added them back to the income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with the said assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the total cash deposited in the bank were only 4 Bindu Kumar A.Y. 2017-18 Rs. 3,92,500/- and the total amount credited

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68,33,045/- made by the AO is sustained to the extent of Rs. 1,92,38,454/- giving relief of Rs. 1,75,94,591/- to the appellant. The AO is however, directed to allow an amount of Rs. 1,62,38,829/- on payment basis in subsequent assessment year 2013-2014 as per section

GURDAS MAL ARORA,KANPUR vs. THE A O CIRCLE-1(2)(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshragurdas Mal Arora V. The Assessing Officer, 21/L/4, Daboli, Circle-1(2)(1) Kanpur. 16/69, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Afepm4342J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit-Dr O R D E R

68 of the IT Act, 1961 rws 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 leading to double taxation as the cash deposit has already been considered in the return of income. Page 2 of 35 5. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the sale has been made out of the stock available with

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

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

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

M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. D/ACIT-1,CENTRAL-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68,990/- in group companies/sister concerns. This entail disallowances to be computed as per the provision of 14A of the IT. Act read with Rule 8D of the IT. Rules, 1962 as in the recent ruling by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, New Delhi, (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC), the same position as discussed

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68,990/- in group companies/sister concerns. This entail disallowances to be computed as per the provision of 14A of the IT. Act read with Rule 8D of the IT. Rules, 1962 as in the recent ruling by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, New Delhi, (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC), the same position as discussed

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUCKNOW, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW vs. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., VIBHUTI KHAND GOMTI NAGAR LKO

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68,990/- in group companies/sister concerns. This entail disallowances to be computed as per the provision of 14A of the IT. Act read with Rule 8D of the IT. Rules, 1962 as in the recent ruling by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, New Delhi, (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC), the same position as discussed

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68,111/- on account of cane development expenses, an amount of Rs.13,76,57,437/- u/s 43B of the Act, an addition of Rs.38,52,24,618/- on account of rejection of assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 43B of the Act; an addition of Rs.1,90,36,043/- on account of disallowance of prior period expenses and further addition

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68,111/- on account of cane development expenses, an amount of Rs.13,76,57,437/- u/s 43B of the Act, an addition of Rs.38,52,24,618/- on account of rejection of assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 43B of the Act; an addition of Rs.1,90,36,043/- on account of disallowance of prior period expenses and further addition

DCIT, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68,111/- on account of cane development expenses, an amount of Rs.13,76,57,437/- u/s 43B of the Act, an addition of Rs.38,52,24,618/- on account of rejection of assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 43B of the Act; an addition of Rs.1,90,36,043/- on account of disallowance of prior period expenses and further addition

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68,111/- on account of cane development expenses, an amount of Rs.13,76,57,437/- u/s 43B of the Act, an addition of Rs.38,52,24,618/- on account of rejection of assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 43B of the Act; an addition of Rs.1,90,36,043/- on account of disallowance of prior period expenses and further addition

U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-VI, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68,111/- on account of cane development expenses, an amount of Rs.13,76,57,437/- u/s 43B of the Act, an addition of Rs.38,52,24,618/- on account of rejection of assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 43B of the Act; an addition of Rs.1,90,36,043/- on account of disallowance of prior period expenses and further addition

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

In the result, appeals vide I

section 14A read with Rule 8D was made\nsolely on the basis of investment by Assessee Company in SPVs without\nverifying objects of investment and understanding of relevant provision of law.\nIt is also submitted that section 14A carries heading 'Expenditure\nincurred in relation to income not includible in total income'\n\nAs per Section

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

68 of the IT Act; Rs.5,57,385/- towards unexplained investment u/s 69C of the Act and Rs.33,00,000/- towards unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. In assessment year 2016-17, assessment order dated 31/12/2018 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1052325703(1) was passed u/s 153A read with section 144 of the Act wherein the assessee’s total