ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

sections": [ "143(3)", "250", "11", "12", "12A", "12AA(3)", "11(1)(d)", "11(1)(a)", "11(2)", "68", "234A", "234B", "234C", "13(3)", "80G", "148", "153A", "245D(1)", "292B

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. Refuting the arguments of the ld. AR, the ld. Sr. DR pointed out that the AO had considered the report of the Investigation Wing which showed that all these accounts were functioning from the same premises and that the assessee was instrumental in the opening of these accounts and therefore, had come to the conclusion that the assessee

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

292B of the Act. 4. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed strong reliance on the impugned order. It has been contended that issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act is a mandatory statutory requirement, which was not fulfilled in the present case and that therefore

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-IV, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. WAVE ENTERPRISES, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Department as well as the Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit V. M/S Wave Enterprises Circle-1 A-104, Indira Nagar Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaafw8536D (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.04/Lkw/2020 (In Ita No.629/Lkw/2019) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Wave Enterprises V. Acit A-104, Indira Nagar Circle-1 Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaafw8536D (Cross-Objector) (Respondent) Department By: Smt. Sheela Chopra, Cit (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 16 06 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 06 2021 O R D E R

292B of the Act. 4. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed strong reliance on the impugned order. It has been contended that issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act is a mandatory statutory requirement, which was not fulfilled in the present case and that therefore