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

96,75,939/- under Section 68 read with 115BBE of the Act on account of bogus LTCG on sale

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)

96,539/- under section 68 on account of closing balance in customer advances account. 3. The learned CIT (A) has erred

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

96,75,939/- under Section 68 read with 115BBE of the Act on account of bogus LTCG on sale

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S SHRI RAMSWAROOP CHARITABLE TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2014-2015

68,95,083/- made by the AO on account of administrative expenses ignoring the fact that the assessee could not substantiate the increase in expenditure and did not furnish any justification and explanation in this regard during the assessment proceedings. 4. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A] has erred in law and facts by deleting the addition of Rs.7,96

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. 11)That, the Appellant craves leave to alter, amend, add or delete one or all the Grounds of appeals mentioned above.” Page 3 of 31 (B). In this case, assessment order dated 27.03.2023 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee

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

96,75,939/- under Section 68 read with 115BBE of the Act on account of bogus LTCG on sale

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

68,95,000/- received as corpus donation. He also brought the surplus of Rs.18,18,45,925/-to tax, which had been claimed as exempt under section 11(1) of the Act. The ld. AO also disallowed the accumulation of Rs. 22,00,00,000/- under section 11(2) of the Act and furthermore added back the same

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

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

96,75,939/- under Section 68 read with 115BBE of the Act on account of bogus LTCG on sale

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 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

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

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

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

68,95,000/- received as corpus donation. He also\nbrought the surplus of Rs.18,18,45,925/-to tax, which had been claimed as exempt\nunder section 11(1) of the Act. The ld. AO also disallowed the accumulation of Rs.\n22,00,00,000/- under section 11(2) of the Act and furthermore added back the\nsame

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FAIZABAD vs. M/S JEEWANI FUELS PVT. LTD, FAIZABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed as discussed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaasstt Commissioner Of M/S. Jeewani Fuels Pvt. V. Income Tax, Circle Ltd Dcit, Circle, Faizabad, Annexe 105, Mughalpura, Hotel Krishna Palace, Civil Faizabad-224001. Lines, Faizabad-224001. Pan:Aabcj2557K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 of the Act, though no specific provision of the Act has been mentioned by the AO in the assessment order, for the reason that the Shri Pawan Kumar Jeewani, Managing Director of the appellant-company and his family members are also directors/share holders in the three companies from which the share application money was received. The observations

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

96,75,939/- under Section 68 read with 115BBE of the Act on account of bogus LTCG on sale

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

96,75,939/- under Section 68 read with 115BBE of the Act on account of bogus LTCG on sale

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

96,75,939/- under Section 68 read with 115BBE of the Act on account of bogus LTCG on sale

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

96,75,939/- under Section 68 read with 115BBE of the Act on account of bogus LTCG on sale

NISHAT ARA,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

96,75,939/- under Section 68 read with 115BBE of the Act on account of bogus LTCG on sale

SHRI PANKAJ VERMA,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, I.T.A. No.390/Lkw/2020 is partly allowed while I

68\nof the Act on account of unexplained cash deposits during\ndemonetization period due to sales credited to its books of\naccount to the extent unsupported by past trend.\"\n\n2. As both these appeals arise out of the same assessment order and\nappeal order, they are being taken up together for the sake of convenience.\n\n3. The facts