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

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

7% 2021-22 1,68,08,35,131 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

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

7% 2021-22 1,68,08,35,131 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

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

7% 2021-22 1,68,08,35,131 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

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

7. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on fact, in deleting addition of unsecured loan of Rs 32 lacs under 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

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:-

7 That the Learned PCIT, Bareilly has erred in holding that it is a case of "lack of enquiry" and, further failing to appreciate that alleged inadequate enquiry in the manner suggested without any independent evidence and, without any further enquiries by him cannot be a basis for assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Grounds

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 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

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

7 borrowed funds have not been used for business purposes, interest paid on borrowed funds used by partners deserves to be disallowed. The facts on this point are similar to the facts in the case of CIT vs. Saraya Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. reported in 193 ITR 575 wherein their lordship of High Court Allahabad held as under:- "that

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

7 – AY 2020-21\nDisallowances of Agriculture Income in tune of Rs.37,00,000/-\nThat in the relevant assessee and his family earned agricultural income in\ntune of Rs.52,00,000/-. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings\ndetail of agricultural income was submitted as under:-\n1. That as regard to gross agriculture income of Rs.52 Lacs earned by\nassessee

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

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

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