M/S. MOTOR FAB SALES PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT/ACIT-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, Departmental appeal bearing

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit/Acit-4 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Lucknow Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Theacit-1 V. M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Shri H.S. Usmani, Cit(Dr)

50,26,650/- under section 68 of the Act . 2.2 The AO invoked the provisions of section 115BBE

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW., LUCKNOW. vs. M/S. MG AUTOSALES PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW.

The appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshradcit, Circle-1 M/S. Mg Autosales Pvt Ltd V. Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57, 3/44 Ambalika, Gokhale Ramtirath Marg, Lucknow- Vihar Marg, Lucknow- 226001. 226001. Pan:Aamcs0717R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashok Seth, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11 12 2024 O R D E R

section 68 of IT Act. Thus, here again, The Ld. CIT(A) has not carried out any verification this claim either on her end or by seeking remand report as per provisions of Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules and deleted all the addition with respect to cash deposit made by AO on the ground that the assessee

PRADEEP KUMAR,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Pradeep Kumar V. The Acit-1 A-1/46, Vikas Khand Lucknow Gomti Nagar Lucknow Pan:Ablpk8392B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Prakash Agrawal, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04 09 2024 O R D E R

50,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act and disallowance of Rs.40,00,000/- under section 37 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved

ITO, WARD-2(3)(1), KANPUR, KANPUR vs. KHANNA SALES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Ito, Vs. Khanna Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ward-2(3)(1), Kanpur 54/34, Nayaganj, Kanpur Pan: Aabck4442N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Swarn Singh, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) For The A.Y. 2017- 18 On 29.12.2019. The Grounds Of The Appeal Are As Under: - “1- Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating The Pattern Of Cash Sales Discussed By The Assessing Officer In Detail In His Order Which Shows A Substantial Jump Of 38% Of Total Sales In The Month Of October, 2016 I.E. The Period Immediately Prior To Demonetization In November, 2016. Cash Sales Before & After This Period Is Negligible. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend Any One Or More Of The Grounds Of Appeal As Stated Above As & When Need For Doing So May Arise. 3. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Deleting The Addition Of 3 Rs. 2,64.19.000/- On Account Of Cash Deposits U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 4. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Not Appreciating That U/S 68 The Ao Is Not Required To Reject The Books Of Accounts. The Only Requirement Is That, If The Explanation Offered By The Assessee Is Not, In The Opinion Of The Assessing Officer Satisfactory, The Sum (Cash Sales) So Credited Can Be Charged To Income-Tax As The Income Of The Assessee Of That Previous Year.”

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 4 Khanna Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2017-18 3. Aggrieved with the said order passed by the ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the NFAC. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC observed that the AO had drawn up a chart without any proper basis and on the basis of imaginary

MAHESH MITTAL,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-5, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshramahesh Mittal V. Acit, Range-5 1/16, Vinay Khand Gomti Income Tax Office Ashok Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Acqpm4459B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Akshay Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

Section 68 of the Act was erroneous in light of a catena of judgements, and liable to be set aside. 10. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in making an addition of interest paid on unsecured loan amounting Rs. 1,50

UP GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.743 & 746/Lkw/2024 & Ita No. 30/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Vs. Assessing Officer, Nfac Welfare, Lucknow Pan:Aaatu0957A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 23.10.2024, 28.10.2024 & 2.01.2024 In The Appeals Preferred Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3), The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aac(1) & The Penalty Order Under Section 270A. The Grounds Of Appeal In These Three Appeals Are As Under:-

68 of the A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Welfare Act, in the absence of any explanation or evidence, he also confirmed the levy of penalty under section 271AAC(1) amounting to Rs.1,14,62,773/-. 7. Following the passing of the order under section 143(3), the ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(4), RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Bareilly V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2472C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Amritsar V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs4654E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Kanpur(I) V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2468Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Guwahati V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2462E (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 and 69C of the Act have been incorrectly made, since the concerned transactions did not relate ITA No.24 to 39/LKW/2019 Page 16 of 46 to the year under consideration; that moreover, neither had the assessee failed to offer an explanation, nor did the source of the expenditure remain unproved; and that the transactions pertaining to the opening inventory

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR vs. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 68 read with 115BBE of the Act on account of bogus LTCG on sale of penny stocks of a company named M/s Gold Line International Finvest Limited. The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed and additions were confirmed with the observation that the Respondent had introduced unaccounted money into the books without paying taxes. Further appeal filed

SMT. SABREEN,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed and Stay Application is dismissed as infructuous

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

Section 68 read with 115BBE of the Act on account of bogus LTCG on sale of penny stocks of a company named M/s Gold Line International Finvest Limited. The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed and additions were confirmed with the observation that the Respondent had introduced unaccounted money into the books without paying taxes. Further appeal filed

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.

68,000/- Kanpur Gupta C/o B.L. Jindal, 53/7 Naya Ganj, Kanpur 2. ICICI Bank Ltd., 628805005663 B.L. Jindal, 53/7, Rs. 6,00,000/- Kanpur Naya Ganj, Kanpur 3. ICICI Bank Ltd., 628805005672 M/s BLJ Rs. 12,63,900/- Kanpur Investment, 53/7, Naya Ganj, Kanpur 4. ICICI Bank Ltd., 628805005674 Garg Share Rs. 53,79,500/- Kanpur Investment C/o B.L. Jindal

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 6(2), LUCKNOW vs. M/S. STATUS VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68 out of credit transaction of Rs.9,84,00,000/-\nafter reducing Rs.3,50,00,000/- being surrendered by Sh. Mahesh\nChandra Agarwal/Sh. Mahesh Chandra Agarwal/Rishita Group before\nHon'ble ITSC.\n\nITA No.403/LKW/2020\nPage 8 of 14\nThat reason recorded while issuing the notice u/s 148 for relevant year has\nprovided (page 2 & 3 of Order

ACIT-3, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. HARSHIT GARG, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Acit, Lucknow Vs. Harshit Garg, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57-Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aiopg3763A (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.25/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 Harshit Garg, Vs. Acit, Lucknow Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 57- Ram Tirath Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aiopg3763A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Akshay Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 17.06.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao

section 68 of the Income Tax Act and the decisions in the case of Oceanic Products Exporting Co. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, [2000] 241 ITR 497 (KER), Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963] 50

MADKINI HYDRO POWER PRIVATE LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 4(3), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2018-19 Madkini Hydro Power Private V. The Income Tax Officer 4(3) Limited Lucknow Flat No.4, Ii Floor 3, Scindia House Delhi 110 001 Tan/Pan:Aaecm1420B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalendera Kishore Singh, Adv. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

68 of the ITA. 11. BECAUSE, the Assessing Officer should have issued notices under the ITA to the creditors who subscribed the ITA No.228/LKW/2025 Page 8 of 13 CCDs to verify the identity and creditworthiness of the person subscribing to the CCDs, and the genuineness of the transaction. The Assessing Officer made no attempt despite specific powers and requirement

ANANT KUMAR,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARABANKI

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

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

section 68 were attracted in the case of the assessee and accordingly he made an addition of Rs. 72,02,700/- after allowing for a cash deposit of Rs. 28,50

PAWAN JAISWAL,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1(3), KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Pawan Jaiswal V. The Income Tax Officer 1(3) 29/43, Ghumni Bazar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpj4999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

section 68 of the Act to 50%, i.e., Rs.2,44,000/- and with regard to the addition of Rs.4

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

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

section 143(3). (3) That a demand of tax as computed in the computation sheet is without jurisdiction void-ab-inito and is liable to be annulled. (4) That the Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 736591857/-comprising  Corpus Donation aggregating to Rs 7,68

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), KANPUR vs. SHRI RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

Section 68 read with 115BBE of the Act on account of bogus LTCG on sale of penny stocks of a company named M/s Gold Line International Finvest Limited. The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed and additions were confirmed with the observation that the Respondent had introduced unaccounted money into the books without paying taxes. Further appeal filed

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

section 37 of the IT Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. AO well as Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.25,52,798/- on account of extra profit on the alleged shortage of stock. (This ground of appeal was not pressed by the assessee). 4. That the order passed by Ld. AO is bad on facts