DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

section 131 of the Act to verify the balances or the work done by the appellant in respect of which the credits were generated in the books of accounts. In view thereof the addition made for old balances existing in the books of account of Rs.11,31,25,121/- is deleted giving relief to the appellant.” 28. Having considered

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)

section 68 of the Act of cash deposits cannot be made simply for the reason ITA No.351 & 431/LKW/2020 Page 28

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)

section 68 of the Act of cash deposits cannot be made simply for the reason ITA No.351 & 431/LKW/2020 Page 28

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. MAA RAKTDANTIKA CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD., 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

28 cubic meter of maurang. However, the maximum permissible royalty / transit pass issued is for 18 cubic meters. Thus, there always remains a possibility of over loading. Rather the extra capacity of the truck encourages the practice of over loading i.e. carrying / transporting more mineral as against issued royalty. In absence of there being any exact/accurate method of measurement

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

28 cubic meter of maurang. However, the maximum permissible royalty / transit pass issued is for 18 cubic meters. Thus, there always remains a possibility of over loading. Rather the extra capacity of the truck encourages the practice of over loading i.e. carrying / transporting more mineral as against issued royalty. In absence of there being any exact/accurate method of measurement

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 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Welfare Act, in the absence of any explanation or evidence, he also confirmed the levy of penalty under section 271AAC(1) amounting to Rs.1,14,62,773/-. 7. Following the passing of the order under section 143(3), the ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S SHRI RAMSWAROOP CHARITABLE TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Y. 2013-14

section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked. Since we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Id. CIT(A), we confirm the same as he has adjudicated the issue In the light of various judicial pronouncements. Accordingly we confirm his order. In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. " ln view of the above

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(4), RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Bareilly V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2472C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Amritsar V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs4654E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Kanpur(I) V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2468Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Guwahati V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2462E (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 and 69C of the Act have been incorrectly made, since the concerned transactions did not relate ITA No.24 to 39/LKW/2019 Page 16 of 46 to the year under consideration; that moreover, neither had the assessee failed to offer an explanation, nor did the source of the expenditure remain unproved; and that the transactions pertaining to the opening inventory

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- Held, yes [in favour of revenue] 8.14 Reliance is also placed on judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in NDR Promoters Ltd. reported in 410 ITR 379 (Del) where it was held "we have no hesitation in holding that transactions in question were clearly sham and make believe with excellent paper work to camouflage their bogus

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR vs. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

68 of the Act as mentioned elsewhere, such discharge of onus is purely a question of fact and therefore the judicial decisions relied upon by the DR would do no good on the peculiar plethora of evidences in respect of the facts of the case in hand and hence the judicial decisions relied upon by both the sides, though perused

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

28 reason for the learned ITAT to interfere with the findings of the lower tax authorities. The learned ITAT after considering the entire conspectus of case and the evidence brought on record, held that the Respondent had successfully discharged the initial onus cast upon it under the provisions of Section 68

M/S BAJRANG LAL JINDAL,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2008-09 M/S Bajrang Lal Jindal, 140, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Anandpuri, Kanpur, U.P. Tax-I, Kanpur Pan: Aanpj5660J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- Kanpur, Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,46,11,400/- Made To The Returned Income Of The Assessee As Unexplained Cash Credits By The Assessing Officer In His Order Dated 31.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That The Ld. Cit (A) I, Kanpur Has Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs. 14611400.00 To The Returned Income Of The Assessee As Unexplained Cash Credits. 2. That The Reasons Recorded For Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 147 By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Were Based On Improper Premise & Accordingly No Legal & Factual Lengs To Stand & Acordingly All Subsequent Proceedings Are Bad In Law. 3. That The Observation Of The Ld. Cit (A) I, Kanpur Confirming View Of Ld. A O That M/S. Maa Devasar Commodity Is Inexistant Is Factually Incorrect. 4. That Ld. Cit (A) I, Kanpur Has Erred In Not Appreciating The Fact That When The Beneficiary Of The Funds Are Not The Assessee, There Could Be No Addition In His Hands.

68,000/- Kanpur Gupta C/o B.L. Jindal, 53/7 Naya Ganj, Kanpur 2. ICICI Bank Ltd., 628805005663 B.L. Jindal, 53/7, Rs. 6,00,000/- Kanpur Naya Ganj, Kanpur 3. ICICI Bank Ltd., 628805005672 M/s BLJ Rs. 12,63,900/- Kanpur Investment, 53/7, Naya Ganj, Kanpur 4. ICICI Bank Ltd., 628805005674 Garg Share Rs. 53,79,500/- Kanpur Investment C/o B.L. Jindal

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2012-13.” and also\nmentioned at page 2 & 3 of the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 24.09.2020.\nFurther, during the first appellate proceedings AO vide letter dated\n14.09.2020 (Page-6 Order of the CIT(A)) submitted his report and\ncommented as under:\n“During the relevant financial

ANANT KUMAR,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARABANKI

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

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

section 68 were attracted in the case of the assessee and accordingly he made an addition of Rs. 72,02,700/- after allowing for a cash deposit of Rs. 28

AMITA GUPTA,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 68 ITA Nos.463 & 464/LKW/2018 Page 9 of 11 could have legitimately been made/sustained in the hands of "appellant" even on protective basis. 5. BECAUSE the "the authorities below "has erred in law and on facts in not only sustaining the addition of Rs.80,452/- on account of commission income but in further enhancing it from Rs.8,28

AMITA GUPTA,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 68 ITA Nos.463 & 464/LKW/2018 Page 9 of 11 could have legitimately been made/sustained in the hands of "appellant" even on protective basis. 5. BECAUSE the "the authorities below "has erred in law and on facts in not only sustaining the addition of Rs.80,452/- on account of commission income but in further enhancing it from Rs.8,28

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