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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

ab initio, it was liable to be annulled. It was also argued that even the alleged assessment order was void, because the columns of the name of the assessee, PAN, assessment year, date of assessment and section under which the order was passed, all had been left blank. Therefore, it was submitted that the entire demand was infructuous, without

KASHI NATH SETH SARRAF PRIVATE LIMITED,HARDOI vs. ACIT, SITAPUR, SITAPUR

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

AB of the Act, no adverse\ninference could be drawn in respect of the declared profit by the\nappellant company in spite of admitting that the sales were out of\nexplained stock in hand.\nThat the entire addition is based on whimsical, fanciful\nassumptions, arbitrary inferences and overlooks the factual position\non record and therefore, the same is invalid, illegal

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

ab initio and as such all assessments under section 153A got vitiated and as such A.O. was not having jurisdiction to pass the assessment orders under section 153A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 11.2. The meaning of the word "Approval" as defined in Black Law Dictionary is – "The Act of confirming, rectifying, sanctioning or consenting to some

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

ab initio and as such all assessments under section 153A got vitiated and as such A.O. was not having jurisdiction to pass the assessment orders under section 153A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 11.2. The meaning of the word "Approval" as defined in Black Law Dictionary is – "The Act of confirming, rectifying, sanctioning or consenting to some

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

ab initio and as such all assessments under section 153A got vitiated and as such A.O. was not having jurisdiction to pass the assessment orders under section 153A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 11.2. The meaning of the word "Approval" as defined in Black Law Dictionary is – "The Act of confirming, rectifying, sanctioning or consenting to some

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 and application of section 115BBE, as above, the tax is once charged as per the normal provisions of the Act and again u/s 115BBE. Thus, the same income is taxed twice which is not permissible under law. 3.3.1 Even if hypothetically it is assumed that the donations to the corpus were received against payment of cash

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 and application of section 115BBE, as above, the tax is once charged as per the normal provisions of the Act and again u/s 115BBE. Thus, the same income is taxed twice which is not permissible under law. 3.3.1 Even if hypothetically it is assumed that the donations to the corpus were received against payment of cash

NAUSHEEN FARAH,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

ab initio. 5. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus long term capital gain u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs.89,31,724/-. 6. That the appellant has rightly claimed the gain from sale of securities as long term capital gain under the relevant section

SHAHEEN RABIA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -II, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

ab initio. 5. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus long term capital gain u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs.89,31,724/-. 6. That the appellant has rightly claimed the gain from sale of securities as long term capital gain under the relevant section

MARGHOOB ALAM,KANPUR vs. DCUT, CC-II, KANPUR, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

ab initio. 5. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus long term capital gain u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs.89,31,724/-. 6. That the appellant has rightly claimed the gain from sale of securities as long term capital gain under the relevant section

ZAIN ALAM,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- II, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

ab initio. 5. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus long term capital gain u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs.89,31,724/-. 6. That the appellant has rightly claimed the gain from sale of securities as long term capital gain under the relevant section

NISHAT ARA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

ab initio. 5. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged bogus long term capital gain u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs.89,31,724/-. 6. That the appellant has rightly claimed the gain from sale of securities as long term capital gain under the relevant section

HIND CHARITABLE TRUST,LUCKNOW vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), LUCKNOW

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: Na Hind Charitable Trust Vs. Pcit(Central) Lucknow Block B, Church Road, Indira Uttar Pradesh-226010. Nagar, Lucknow-226016. Tan/Pan:Aaath5498M (Appellant) (Respondent)

ab initio as the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Lucknow lacked the requisite jurisdiction to cancel the registration under section 12AA of the Act, a power exclusively vested in the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)”. 3.0 For the sake of completeness, it is also worth mentioning that the assessee had approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (ITAT

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

section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as Id.CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of the Act when the books of accounts have already been rejected u/s 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. That the Id.AO has erred in rejecting the books of account without issuance of show-cause

RAKESH KUMAR,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), BARABANKI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Rakesh Kumar V. The Income Tax Officer Naka Paisar Ward 5(5) Deen Dayal Nagar Barabanki Barabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Awkpk2247F (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 27.12.2023, 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 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 Deposited Rs.11,40,000/- During The Demonetization Period, I.E., From 09.11.2016 To 30.12.2016 In His Bank Account No.752530110000014 Maintained With Bank Of India, Subeha Bazar, Haidergarh. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Explain The Source Of Cash Deposits In His Bank Account. Since There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The

35 is incomplete/not filled properly especially Column No.8 & 9’ and confirmed the order of the AO. 2.5 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the orders of the AO as well as the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 01. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal ex-parte

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

2 – AY 2014-15 Ld. CIT(A)-3 sustained the addition Rs. 1201000/- (Rs. 4346000-3135000) That assessee has acquired lease hold plot measuring at 781.40 sqm. situated at Khata no. 192/2,Gata no. 447/2, (Part) Civil line, Gonda purchased by assessee for consideration was Rs. 31,45,000/- from Smt. Pushplata Saran, Shri. Saurabh Saran, Shri. Shobhit Saran

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

2 – AY 2014-15 Ld. CIT(A)-3 sustained the addition Rs. 1201000/- (Rs. 4346000-3135000) That assessee has acquired lease hold plot measuring at 781.40 sqm. situated at Khata no. 192/2,Gata no. 447/2, (Part) Civil line, Gonda purchased by assessee for consideration was Rs. 31,45,000/- from Smt. Pushplata Saran, Shri. Saurabh Saran, Shri. Shobhit Saran

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

2 – AY 2014-15 Ld. CIT(A)-3 sustained the addition Rs. 1201000/- (Rs. 4346000-3135000) That assessee has acquired lease hold plot measuring at 781.40 sqm. situated at Khata no. 192/2,Gata no. 447/2, (Part) Civil line, Gonda purchased by assessee for consideration was Rs. 31,45,000/- from Smt. Pushplata Saran, Shri. Saurabh Saran, Shri. Shobhit Saran

MANSI DIDWANIA,LUCKNOW vs. D/ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshramansi Didwania Dcit/Acit-3 V. 112/16, Shri Ram Road, Lucknow-New/Nfac Aminabad, Lucknow, U.P.- Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 226018. Ram Trith Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aeupd8333B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P.K. Kapoor, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 05 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 05 2025 O R D E R

section 250 of the “Act”, which required the ld. first appellate authority to state the points for determination, decision thereon and reason, for the decision, and owing to such a violation of the Page 2 of 4 statutory provision, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and matter restored o Id. “CIT(A)” for passing the order afresh