BADRI PRASAD VISHWA NATH JEWELS,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 of Income-tax Act and computing tax liability on the same u/s 115BBE of Income-tax Act. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in disallowing purchases amounting to Rs.2,54,52,515/- by applying the provisions of section 40A(3) of Income-tax Act. 5. The Ld. Commissioner

MOHD. AYAZ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2. The facts of the case are, that in this case, an original assessment order was passed under section 143(3) on 9.12.2019 on a total returned income of Rs.33,76,700/-. Subsequently, an order under section 263 was passed by the Pr. CIT, Lucknow-1 on 8.03.2022, with a direction to make a proper enquiry and verification

GURU KRIPA ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PR. CIT, , BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

68 of the Act, we\nhold, could not have been inferred from\nthe facts on record, and there is no error\nas such in the order of the AO in this\nregard. The order passed by the ld. Pr.\nCIT under section 263 of the Act holding\nthe assessment order erroneous so as to\ncause prejudice to the Revenue

HARSAHAIMAL SHIAMLAL JEWELLERS PVIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), BAREILLY

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Harsahaimal Shiamlal Jewellers Shri Vimalendu Verma, Private Limited, 148, Civil Lines, Vs. Pcit (Central), Lucknow, U.P. Bareilly, U.P.-243001 Pan:Aacch3785L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Act, Passed By The Ld. Pcit, Central ,Lucknow On 17.02.2022, Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer, Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act On 29.07.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred, Are As Under:-

68 of the Act. The ld. PCIT opined that the assessee does not appear to be able to substantiate the cash availability leading upto 8.11.2016 i.e. the day Government announced demonetization and the few details furnished appeared to A.Y. 2017-18 Harsahaimal Shiamlal Jewellers P. Ltd. be fabricated, only to show an inflated cash balance

M/S RAJ KUMAR SINGH & CO.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68,26,630/- ia on account of an entry of Rs.19,31,370/- in the account of Smt. Mithli Srivastava, who retired from the partnership of the appellant firm in the year relevant to assessment year 1989-90. Thus, as on 1.4.1989, the partners account altogether disclosed a debit balance of Rs.3,28,93,607/- after ignoring the aforementioned notional

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

sections": ["132", "143(3)", "145(3)", "147", "148", "148A", "149", "153A", "153D", "153B", "144A", "40A(3)", "80C", "80G", "54F", "68", "69A", "56(2

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

68,08,35,131/- computed by the Assessing Officer under section 145(3) of the Act,\nwithout appreciating that the assessee failed to produce books of\naccounts, bills, and vouchers and that the trading results shown by the\nassessee were not found open to verification and were unreliable.\n\n18. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RANGE-, LUCKNOW., LUCKNOW vs. SH. SHARAD DEORA, LUCKNOW.

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

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

section 68 of the Act by accepting Credit Worthiness of SAPPHIRESAMBHAV INFRAESTATES PVT LTD who had NIL income and turnover, NIL advance tax, NIL TDS during the year.” 2. Revenue has also raised revised grounds of appeal, which are reproduced as under: “1. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts by deleting addition made

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

68,08,35,131 17,03,38,176 10.13 11% 10.13% Addition on extra profit deleted. 2022-23 2,82,59,71,973 28,50,48,173 11% 9.68% Addition on extra profit deleted. That during the course of search proceeding in statement recorded u/s 132(4), dated 05/06.02.2022 assessee admitted following – That percentage of net profit shown

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

68,08,35,131 17,03,38,176 10.13 11% 10.13% Addition on extra profit deleted. 2022-23 2,82,59,71,973 28,50,48,173 11% 9.68% Addition on extra profit deleted. That during the course of search proceeding in statement recorded u/s 132(4), dated 05/06.02.2022 assessee admitted following – That percentage of net profit shown

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

68,08,35,131 17,03,38,176 10.13 11% 10.13% Addition on extra profit deleted. 2022-23 2,82,59,71,973 28,50,48,173 11% 9.68% Addition on extra profit deleted. That during the course of search proceeding in statement recorded u/s 132(4), dated 05/06.02.2022 assessee admitted following – That percentage of net profit shown

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

40A(3) of the Act, where profit is \nestimated. \n\n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while \nsustaining the addition deduction claimed u/s 80G of the extent of \ndonation of Rs.1,50,000/- out of Rs.14,06,000/- allowed part relief to the \nextent of Rs.6,00,000/-. \n\n5. Because

CHANDRA SHEKHAR SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

68 being total cash credit from three parties Rock Heights, Kanchan Bhaiya & Manoj Kumar, addition of Rs.9,00,000/- u/s 69A towards payment to Sri Anil Kumar Modi in Federal Bank A/c and addition of Rs.99,000/- under the provisions of section 40A(3) made in the assessment order and not addressed by the Ld. CIT (A) are contrary

MOHAMMAD MOIN,KANPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshramohammad Moin V. National E-Assessment A-25, New Sabji Mandi, Centre Chakarpur, Kanpur-208002. Delhi. Pan: Afopm8226M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act whereby the assessee’s Page 2 of 5 total income was assessed at Rs.38,75,110/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, an addition amounting to Rs.15,90,300/- was made on account of cash deposit in the bank account. The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid addition was dismissed