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 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 and 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

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)

sections 69C and 68 of the Act are specific and entirely peculiar thereto. They have no interplay with valuation of the works-in-progress. They operate separately in their respective distinct areas. That being so, valuation of the works-in-progress could not have any bearing whatsoever, on the additions made. 53. Therefore, even this observation

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 of the Act. It is recorded that “There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de-mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels.” The above noted factors

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

56 (w.e.f. 1.4.1989)............]”\n(6) Thus, in effect, the direction of the Ld. CIT(A) was to\ninitiate proceedings u/s 148 read with section 147 of the Act in\nrespect of beneficiaries of the aforesaid amount of Rs.6.34 crores\nrouted through the bank account of the assessee. The direction\nof the Ld. CIT(A) is found to be just

DIVESH KUMAR,BAREILLY vs. ACIT CENTRAL, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Divesh Kumar Shri Kharak Singh V. Rawat, 19, Shishgarh, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh-243105. Dc/Acit-Cent, Bareilly Office Of The Acit, Central Circle Dc/Acit Cent Bareilly-1-243001 Pan:Cfdpk1712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 19 11 2024

56 AM, 11/26/2024] Self: from Mahindra Bolero, Vehicle Registration no - UKO6 AN 4195 which at the time of seizure was occupied by the assessee. Subsequently, on receipt of information, a warrant of authorization u/s 132A of the Income tax Act, 1961 was issued by the Pr. Director of Income tax (Investigation), Lucknow on 30.03.2019 and accordingly cash

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

68. However, he noted that the assessee had offered a sum of Rs.70,00,000/- as unexplained cash in PMGKY and therefore, he made an addition of only Rs.2,98,53,859/-. However, the ld. Assessing Officer separately added back Rs.70,00,000/- declared under the PMGKY and claimed as deduction under section 37, holding that the deduction

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide I

section 14A of the Act, amounting to\nRs.2,56,56,447/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the aforesaid amount\nholding that this amount represented interest expenses in relation to making\ninvestments, income from which would not be includable in the assessee's\nhand. In the impugned appellate order, the learned CIT(A) deleted the\naforesaid addition after considering the assessee

M/S CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,LAKHIMPUR-KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-I, LAKHIMPUR -KHERI

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

section 56 of the Act, in\nview of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgars Cooperative\nSale Society Limited vs. ITO, (2010) 322 ITR 263 (SC) and the decision of Hon'ble\nAllahabad High Court in its order in ITA No. 520/2008 which had held that such\ninterest i.e. the like of which

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 115BBE of the Act, Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act are being initiated separately as the income computed includes income u/s 69C of the Act. (Addition of Rs. 22,55,000/-) 21. That the appellant being aggrieved from the above additions went in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who deleted the above addition made

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, 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 115BBE of the Act, Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act are being initiated separately as the income computed includes income u/s 69C of the Act. (Addition of Rs. 22,55,000/-) 21. That the appellant being aggrieved from the above additions went in appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who deleted the above addition made

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nRevision orders prejudicial to interest of revenue -Assessment year 2000-\n01 Whether assessment order which has been subject-matter of\nproceeding under section 263 may be a cryptic one but that itself does not\nrender assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to interest of\nrevenue Held, yes Assessee received gifts from

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

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

section 68 i.e. identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. Though now AO is trying to place on record report of DDIT(Inv), Unit-2, Kolkata who submitted its report vide letter dated 17.04.2018 in support of this request. This report was received on 17.04.2018 whereas the impugned assessment order was passed on 28.12.2017. Therefore this report

NEERAJ JAISWAL AND OTHERS,BAREILLY vs. ACIT-1, BAREILLY

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2020-21 & ( S.A. No.08/Lkw/2025) In Ita. No.33/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year 2020-21 Neeraj Jaiswal & Others Vs. The Acit-1 Green Park, Bareilly-243001. ‘C.R. Building’, Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Aaaan4041K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68. Moreover, it was held that it is a settled law that the assessee need not to prove the 'source of source'. 5.3 In our considered view, although having a meager income might be an indicator of a person having low creditworthiness, all the same, if a person is able to demonstrate with evidence, the source of giving

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. SHRI YOGESH MULWANI, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2016-17 The Asstt. Cit V. Shri Yogesh Mulwani Range 1 36, Cantonment Road Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ahnpm4669B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Respondent By: Shri K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 19 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 06 2022 O R D E R

56,202 1,23,746 - Industries 5 M/s SSD Optics 3,15,196 1,55,326 6 M/s Optics Trade 1,39,353 12,88,041 29,17,939 TOTAL(Rs) 74,32,088 17,76,771 1,46,53,689.03 4.5 From the perusal of the assessment order and Remand Report, it is evident that four

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

Section 153A of the Act i.e. of 16 August 2018 all those persons who originally gave statement were mostly retracted. Subsequently, during the course of assessment proceedings, these persons were cross-examined, who confirmed the retraction of the statement. Therefore, now these statements do not have any evidentiary value. 032. Even otherwise, in none of the statement recorded

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

Section 153A of the Act i.e. of 16 August 2018 all those persons who originally gave statement were mostly retracted. Subsequently, during the course of assessment proceedings, these persons were cross-examined, who confirmed the retraction of the statement. Therefore, now these statements do not have any evidentiary value. 032. Even otherwise, in none of the statement recorded

SHRI UMA SHANKER DHANDHANIA,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(5), KANPUR

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

56,065/- on account of undisclosed commission payment @ 0.5% of the Long Term Capital Gain that had been assumed to be incurred to arrange bogus Long Term Capital Gain amounting to Rs. 1,12,13,010/-. We note that the scripts / equity shares of M/s Sulabh Engineering and Services Ltd. has been dealt with by the SMC Bench of this

ASHOK KUMAR KUSHWAHA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-6 (I), LUCKNOW

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ashok Kumar Kushwaha V. The Income Tax Officer 6(1) 557/27G/6, Om Nagar Lucknow - New Alambagh, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aqbpk1644F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Jagdish Prasad, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

section 143(3) of the Act, computing the income of the assessee as under: Returned income : Rs.2,56,350/- Addition u/s. 68