KASHI NATH SETH SARRAF PRIVATE LIMITED,HARDOI vs. ACIT, SITAPUR, SITAPUR

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

69A of the Act when\nsubject matter of dispute all through before appeal in Tribunal was only with\nregard to addition of alleged amount u/s 68 of the Act. To quote from the\norder of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, it was held as under:\n\n“16. In the present case, it is apparent that the subject matter

ACIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. MAA RAKTDANTIKA CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 and from section 69 to 69D at a flat rate of tax and do not allow any deduction in respect of expenditure or allowance under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it is important for application of section 115BBE that the assessee should first fall in any of these sections. In our opinion, in the present

M/S. MAA RAKLTDANTIKA CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT/ACIT, RANGE-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

68 and from section 69 to 69D at a flat rate of tax and do not allow any deduction in respect of expenditure or allowance under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it is important for application of section 115BBE that the assessee should first fall in any of these sections. In our opinion, in the present

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return

TACK EXIM PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE2(3)(1), KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Tack Exim Pvt. Limited V. Asstt. Commissioner Of 11/18-A, Pokharpur Income Tax, Jajmau, Kanpur Circle 2(3)(1), Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aadct7929D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 11 2024 O R D E R

69A of the Act. Although in the assessee’s case, the impugned addition had been made under section 68

LALJI YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

sections": [ "143(3)", "253(3)", "69A", "139(1)", "142(1)", "133(6)", "68", "148", "115BBE", "2(1A)", "56" ], "issues

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

69A from IT Act but AO did not evolve the matter further to prove as to how these sections are applicable on facts of this case to tax this amount as income from the undisclosed sources of the assessee. No addition can be made in assessment without invoking any particular charging section

SUNNY KAPOOR,BAREILLY vs. ITO-2(2), BAREILLY NEW

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

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2017-28

section 115BBE which are not applicable as the provisions of 69A are applicable in the case of unexplained investments outside the books of account whereas the deposits made in the bank account cannot be said to be unexplained and which was also recorded in the books of account of the assessee. In this respect my attention was invited

SHASHI INFRA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ITO, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Shashi Infra V. The Constructions Pvt Ltd Addl/Joint/Deputy/Asstt/Income 328B, 5Th Lane Rajendra Tax Officer, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226004. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Tan/Pan:Aaucs5802M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

68 of the Act. He therefore, recorded his satisfaction that the Income to the tune of Rs. 14.76 crores had escaped assessment and that this was due to the assessee having failed to disclose truly and fully all facts. 8. Section 147 of the Act provides inter-alia that if the Assessing Officer has the reason to believe that

SHARDA DEVI,BASTI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, BASTI

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Sharda Devi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, W/O Shyam Singh, Near Zila Basti-New Chikitsalaya, Purani Basti, Basti-2721 Pan: Auspd8424B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 16.01.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of Penalty Passed By The Ld. Ao Dated 17.01.2022 In Limine Without Going Into The Merits Of The Case. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Being Cash Deposited In Bank During Demonetization Period Under Section 69A R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act, Which Addition Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law Be Deleted. 02. Because The Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Assessee Is Carrying On The Business Of Household Items, Such As, Business Of Achar, Kuchry (Grocery) Declaring Profit Under Section 44Ad @ 8% Wherein The Provisions Of Section 68 & Section 69 Are Not Applicable, The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Made By The Ao & Upheld By The Cit(A) Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law Be Deleted. 03. Because The Explanation Furnished By The Assessee Has Not Been Found False Of Untrue, The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Made By The Ao & Upheld By The Cit(A) Be Deleted.”

69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, which addition is contrary to facts, bad in law be deleted. 02. Because the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee is carrying on the business of household items, such as, business of Achar, Kuchry (Grocery) declaring profit under section 44AD @ 8% wherein the provisions of section 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

69A from IT Act but AO did not evolve the matter further to prove as to how these sections are applicable on facts of this case to tax this amount as income from the undisclosed sources of the assessee. No addition can be made in assessment without invoking any particular charging section

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

section 68 of the I.T. Act. In this regard also he placed reliance on Third Member decision of ITAT reported at JMK Exports vs. ACIT [2024] 161 taxmann.com 481 (Delhi-Trib.); order of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Sarika Jain vs. CIT 407 ITR 254 (Allahabad)/84 taxmann.com 64 (Allahabad). Moreover, he also placed reliance on order

M/S SHIVANSH INFRAESTATE PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Block-A, Surajdeep Income Tax, Range-6, 3Rd Floor, Complex, 1-Jopling Road, 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001 P.K. Complex, Lucknow Pan: Aaqcs5896P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 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), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 30.12.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1- The Ld. Cit (A) Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Ground That Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito-6(1) Lucknow On 01.04.2016 Without Appreciating That Jurisdiction Of Case Lies With Dcit, Range-6, Lucknow, Hence The Notice Issued By Ito-6(1) Is Without Jurisdiction & Invalid. Further, No Notice U/S 143(2) Has Been Issued By Jurisdictional Dcit, Range-Vi, Lucknow Within The Period As Per Section 143(2) Of L. T. Act. Hence The Present Assessment Is Invalid, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2- The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Upheld The Addition Without Appreciating That Ld. A. O. Rejected The Books Of Account & Instead Of Estimating The Net Profit, Additions Were Made On The Basis Of Same Books Of Account By Disallowing Expenses Under Different Heads Total Rs. 1,75,91,607/- & Addition U/S 68 R. W. S. 115Bbe Of I. T. Act For Rs. 1,32,78,833/- Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law.

68 r. w. s. 115BBE of I. T. Act for Rs. 1,32,78,833/- which is contrary to the Provisions of Law. 1 M/s Shivansh Infrestate Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2015-16 3- The Ld. C. I. T. (A) upheld the addition of Rs. 60,84,714/- being disallowance of Commission Expenses without appreciating that due TDS was made

YASH ORNAMENTS (P) LTD.,,BAREILLY vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Yash Ornaments (P) Ltd. V. The Acit Lg, 2/35C, Krishna Janki Circle-2 Complex, Civil Lines Bareilly Bareilly Pan:Aaacy3311K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Yogendra Kumar Mishra, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 07 2024 O R D E R

68 of the Act and thus the action of the Ld. CIT (A)s to suo motu change the section is invalid in law and thus the addition so sustained be ordered to be deleted. 5. That the Ld. CIT (A)'s further grossly erred in law in conforming the addition by applying the provisions of Section 69A

SHAHEEN RABIA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -II, KANPUR

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

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

section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale of securities be treated

MARGHOOB ALAM,KANPUR vs. DCUT, CC-II, KANPUR, KANPUR

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

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

section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale of securities be treated

NAUSHEEN FARAH,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

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

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

section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale of securities be treated

ZAIN ALAM,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- II, KANPUR

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

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

section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale of securities be treated