MADKINI HYDRO POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 4(3), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2018-19 Madkini Hydro Power Private V. The Income Tax Officer 4(3) Limited Lucknow Flat No.4, Ii Floor 3, Scindia House Delhi 110 001 Tan/Pan:Aaecm1420B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalendera Kishore Singh, Adv. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

68 of the Act. The AO passed the order under section 144 read with sections 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act, assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.12,33,19,856/-. 2.1 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under sections 270A

VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA,SIDDHARTH NAGAR vs. ACIT, GONDA

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Vijay Kumar Gupta V. The Acit Bewa Chauraha Gonda - New Dumariyaganj Siddharth Nagar Tan/Pan:Bmypg7642F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 05 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 05 2025 O R D E R

68 of the Act. The AO also noticed from the bank account statement of Account No.30830961193 maintained with Bank of India, Hallaur that the total credits were at Rs.19,06,89,224/- and the cash deposits made during the demonetization period were at Rs.3,91,36,000/-. After subtracting Rs.3,91,36,000/- from 19,06,89,224/-, which came

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

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

ASHOK KUMAR KUSHWAHA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-6 (I), LUCKNOW

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ashok Kumar Kushwaha V. The Income Tax Officer 6(1) 557/27G/6, Om Nagar Lucknow - New Alambagh, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aqbpk1644F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Jagdish Prasad, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

68 of the Act : Rs.7,73,500/- Addition on a/c of profit from business: Rs.36,58,380/- Assessed Income : Rs.46,88,230/- 2.3 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A

SKYHIGH INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-6(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaand\Nshri, Nikhil Choudhary\Nita No. 242/Lkw/2025\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nskyhigh Infrastructures Pvt\Nltd\Nv.\Ncp-2 Ii Floor, Gomti Plaza,\Nvikas Khand, Gomti Nagar,\Nlucknow-226010.\Nincome Tax Officer-6(1)\Npratyaksh Kar Bhawan,\Nlucknow-226001.\Npan:Aatcs1687B\N(Appellant)\N(Respondent)\Nappellant By:\Nshri P. K. Kapoor, Ca\Nrespondent By:\Nshri Amit Kumar, Dr\Ndate Of Hearing:\N10 06 2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N31 07 2025\Norder\Nper Nikhil Choudhary.:\Nthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of\Nthe Learned Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi\Nu/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, For Short) Dated\N17.01.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of\Nthe Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Assessing\Nofficer U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 28.12.2019. The Grounds Of\Nappeal Are As Under: -\N“1.

sections": [ "250", "143(3)", "143(2)", "68", "133(6)", "272A(1)(d)", "270A", "271AAC(1)", "115BBE", "234B" ], "issues": "Whether

ANOOP KUMAR GUPTA,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4), BARABANKI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Anoop Kumar Gupta V. The Income Tax Officer Patel Nagar Ward 5(4) Fatehpur, Barabanki Barabanki-1 Tan/Pan:Ahtpg8238Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 14 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 05 2025 O R D E R

section 271AAC and 270A of the Act, separately. ITA No.212/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 6 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The NFAC partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the orders of the AO as well as the NFAC by raising the following

SWETA BHALLA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO WARD3(4), LUCKNOW NEW

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sweta Bhalla V. The Income Tax Officer B1/62J, Sector J Ward 3(4) Aliganj, Lucknow Lucknow - New Tan/Pan:Ceapb4283C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’). The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, computing the total income of the assessee at Rs.10,86,860/-. 2.1 The AO also invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A

SANTOSH KUMAR GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI/ITO-1(4), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Santosh Kumar Gupta V. The Assessment Unit (Nfac) 624 61, Chinhat Ito 1(4), Lucknow Faizabad Road Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ahspg3013E (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Mahendra Kumar, Fca Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.05.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Carrying On The Business Of Mobiles, Electrical & Electronic Goods. The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of Rs.15,60,000/- During The Demonetization Period (From 09.11.2016 To 31.12.2016) In His Four Different Bank Accounts Bearing A/C Nos.20050580560 & 31121736248, Maintained With State Bank Of India, Chinhat Branch, Lucknow, A/C No.1840210572, Maintained With Central Bank Of India

68,786/- and the same was treated as the business income and was also added to the total income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment ITA No.498/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 6 under section 144 of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.29,56,290/-. 2.2 The AO also invoked the provisions of section

M.K. WOOD TRADING CORPORATION,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 M. K. Wood Trading Corporation V. The Dcit/Acit-1 10, Basha Khera Lucknow New Takrohi, Indira Nagar Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aarfm2443G (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.08.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Timber Products. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 10.12.2020 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.54,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment And, Accordingly, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee. The Ao Finally Issued Show Cause Notice Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) Dated 21.3.2022, Vide Which The Ao

68 of the Act Total assessed income Rs.47,32,989/- 2.5 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 270A

BHAWANI DEVELOPERS,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW-NEW

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid\ndirections

section 68 is squarely applicable in the case of assessee.\n3.1.7\nTherefore, cumulatively, considering facts and circumstances of the case, as\ndiscussed above, the total credit of Rs.20,25,54,000/- found credited in the books of assesse\nfor the F.Y. 2017-18 is treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and brought to\ntax accordingly

UNIVERSAL WATCH HOUSE,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2020-21 Universal Watch House V. The Ito 30, M.G. Marg Faceless Assessment Hazratganj, Lucknow Delhi Tan/Pan:Aabfu0924G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Akshay Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prajesh Srivastava, D.R. O R D E R

68 of the Act on account of explained capital (Rs.12,60,000), unsecured loans (Rs.8.00 lakhs) and unexplained Sundry Creditors (Rs.28,86,655). 5. Variation in respect of addition made on Rs.17,75,605/- account of Gross Profit. Total assessed income. Rs.75,67,880/- 4.0 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 270A

NAND KISHORE SINGH,BARABANKI vs. ASSESSEMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, FACELESS

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Nand Kishore Singh V. Assessment Unit Jarmapur Income Tax Department Post Barauli Malik Lucknow Barabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ataps3227Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Jain, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

270A and 271AAC r.w.s. 274 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee. ITA No.674/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 5 5. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of its appeal by the NFAC

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

section 271AAC and 270A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order

UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

270A of the Act is issued for under reporting and misreporting of\nincome separately.\n(B.1) The assessee's appeal was partly allowed by the learned CIT(A) in\nimpugned appellate order dated 29/03/2024. The learned CIT(A) confirmed\nthe aforesaid addition of Rs.94,13,54,207/-. However, the aforesaid\nadditions of Rs.3,34,64,76,831/- and Rs.2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT\nAND\nSHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)

270A of the Act is issued for under reporting and misreporting of\nincome separately.\n\n(B.1) The assessee's appeal was partly allowed by the learned CIT(A) in\nimpugned appellate order dated 29/03/2024. The learned CIT(A) confirmed\nthe aforesaid addition of Rs.94,13,54,207/-. However, the aforesaid\nadditions of Rs.3,34,64,76,831/- and Rs.2

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 234B of the Act. 14. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 15. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 16. The "appellant" craves leave, to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before hearing of appeal. ITA No.272/LKW/2024: 1.1. BECAUSE

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. J/DCIT-CC,, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 234B of the Act. 14. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 15. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 16. The "appellant" craves leave, to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before hearing of appeal. ITA No.272/LKW/2024: 1.1. BECAUSE

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 234B of the Act. 14. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 15. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 16. The "appellant" craves leave, to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before hearing of appeal. ITA No.272/LKW/2024: 1.1. BECAUSE