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

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:-

B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.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

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

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)

B’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2017-18 Mohd. Ayaz, vs. The DCIT, 262/81/2 Katara Azam Beg, Range-4, Lucknow Billochpura, Lucknow-226004 PAN:AIRPA6185H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue by: Sh. Vachaspati, CIT DR Date of hearing: 21.05.2025 Date of pronouncement

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

2)(vii)(b) in\nrespect of property at Khata No. 192-2 / Gata No. 447/2, Civil Lines, Gonda in\ncontravention of the facts that agreement for transfer of the\nproperty was undertaken during the F.Y. 2009-10 and\nbased on FMV computed in A.Y., 2014-15 at Rs.43,46,000/- only on account of indexation. The addition\nof Rs.12

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)(vii)(b

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

2,30,000/- 1.3597 Hect. b) (PAN/Aadhar-243864686286) (Mother) Smt. LalitaPandey (PAN-BWPPP5188L) (Spouse) Rs. 1,10,000/- 0.6340 Hect. c) Rakesh Kumar Pandey (PAN: ATIPP6520B) Rs. 34,30,000/- 20.176 Hect. d) Total Rs. 46,60,000/- Further, while declaring agricultural income for relevant year of whole family, assessee offered the same on its Gross Value could not deduct agricultural

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

2,30,000/- 1.3597 Hect. b) (PAN/Aadhar-243864686286) (Mother) Smt. LalitaPandey (PAN-BWPPP5188L) (Spouse) Rs. 1,10,000/- 0.6340 Hect. c) Rakesh Kumar Pandey (PAN: ATIPP6520B) Rs. 34,30,000/- 20.176 Hect. d) Total Rs. 46,60,000/- Further, while declaring agricultural income for relevant year of whole family, assessee offered the same on its Gross Value could not deduct agricultural

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

2,30,000/- 1.3597 Hect. b) (PAN/Aadhar-243864686286) (Mother) Smt. LalitaPandey (PAN-BWPPP5188L) (Spouse) Rs. 1,10,000/- 0.6340 Hect. c) Rakesh Kumar Pandey (PAN: ATIPP6520B) Rs. 34,30,000/- 20.176 Hect. d) Total Rs. 46,60,000/- Further, while declaring agricultural income for relevant year of whole family, assessee offered the same on its Gross Value could not deduct agricultural

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

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

B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.57/Lkw/2023 Assessment year:2017-18 Dy.C.I.T., Vs. Shri Sharad Deora, Circle-1, 3/179, Vivek Khand, Lucknow. Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. PAN:ACWPD8018R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Deepak Yadav, D.R. Respondent by Shri A.P. Sinha, Advocate O R D E R PER SUBHASH MALGURIA:J.M. This

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