ARUP BANERJI,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Arup Banerji, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 14/18, Elgin Road, Allahabad Income Tax, Circle-1, Allahabad Pan:Acupb7330A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. S.K. Jaiswal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2024 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 Dismissing His Appeal Against The Order Of The Dcit, Circle-1, Allahabad Passed On 30.12.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That Appellant Does Not Want To Pursue The Appeal & Dismissing Appeal Ex- Party Without Affording An Adequate & Effective Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Allowing The Set-Off Of Loss From Derivative Trading Of Rs. 66,05,524/- Brought Forward From Assessment Year 2008-09 Against The Current Year Income Of Rs. 60,19,056/- Earned From Derivative Trading. 3. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Wrongly Conceived The Fact That Appellant Has Brought Forward Loss From Trading In 'Commodity Derivatives' As Per Clause (E) Of Section 43(5) Whereas The Appellant Has Brought Forward Loss From Trading In 'Derivative' As Per Clause

d) of section 43(5) which is excluded from the definition of 'speculative transaction' with effect from 01.04.2006. 4. BECAUSE the appellant has rightly set-off the losses from derivative trading brought forward from assessment year 2008-09 against the current year income from derivative trading. 5. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principle

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

D E R PER BENCH: These TEN appeals have been preferred by two different assessees. The appeals in ITA Nos.50 to 54/Alld/2023 in the case of Sanjana are directed against separate orders, all dated 06.03.2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

D E R PER BENCH: These TEN appeals have been preferred by two different assessees. The appeals in ITA Nos.50 to 54/Alld/2023 in the case of Sanjana are directed against separate orders, all dated 06.03.2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

D E R PER BENCH: These TEN appeals have been preferred by two different assessees. The appeals in ITA Nos.50 to 54/Alld/2023 in the case of Sanjana are directed against separate orders, all dated 06.03.2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

D E R PER BENCH: These TEN appeals have been preferred by two different assessees. The appeals in ITA Nos.50 to 54/Alld/2023 in the case of Sanjana are directed against separate orders, all dated 06.03.2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

D E R PER BENCH: These TEN appeals have been preferred by two different assessees. The appeals in ITA Nos.50 to 54/Alld/2023 in the case of Sanjana are directed against separate orders, all dated 06.03.2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

D E R PER BENCH: These TEN appeals have been preferred by two different assessees. The appeals in ITA Nos.50 to 54/Alld/2023 in the case of Sanjana are directed against separate orders, all dated 06.03.2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

D E R PER BENCH: These TEN appeals have been preferred by two different assessees. The appeals in ITA Nos.50 to 54/Alld/2023 in the case of Sanjana are directed against separate orders, all dated 06.03.2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

D E R PER BENCH: These TEN appeals have been preferred by two different assessees. The appeals in ITA Nos.50 to 54/Alld/2023 in the case of Sanjana are directed against separate orders, all dated 06.03.2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

D E R PER BENCH: These TEN appeals have been preferred by two different assessees. The appeals in ITA Nos.50 to 54/Alld/2023 in the case of Sanjana are directed against separate orders, all dated 06.03.2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

D E R PER BENCH: These TEN appeals have been preferred by two different assessees. The appeals in ITA Nos.50 to 54/Alld/2023 in the case of Sanjana are directed against separate orders, all dated 06.03.2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, ITA Nos.50, 51, 52, 53 & 54/ALLD/2023

KESARWANI MARKETING(P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

D E R PER Bench: These two appeals are filed by assessee, being aggrieved by separate appellate order(s) passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeas)- Allahabad, U.P. , for assessment year(s)(ay) : 2009-10 and 2010-11. Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/s. Kesarwani Marketing Private Limited, Allahabad U.P. v. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle, Allahabad

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING (P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT (OSD), ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

D E R PER Bench: These two appeals are filed by assessee, being aggrieved by separate appellate order(s) passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeas)- Allahabad, U.P. , for assessment year(s)(ay) : 2009-10 and 2010-11. Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/s. Kesarwani Marketing Private Limited, Allahabad U.P. v. JCIT (OSD), Central Circle, Allahabad

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING(P).LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT. CIT(OSD),, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

D E R PER Bench: These four appeals are filed by assessee, being aggrieved by separate appellate order(s) passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeas)- Allahabad, U.P. , for assessment year(s)(ay) : 2005-06 to 2008-09. ITA No.159/Alld./2013, 76/Alld./2013, 77/Alld/2013 & 78/Alld/2013 Assessment Year: 2005-06,2006-07,2007-08 & 2008-09 M/s. Kesarwani Marketing Private

M/S KESARWANI <ARKETING (P) LTD,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT (OSD),, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

D E R PER Bench: These four appeals are filed by assessee, being aggrieved by separate appellate order(s) passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeas)- Allahabad, U.P. , for assessment year(s)(ay) : 2005-06 to 2008-09. ITA No.159/Alld./2013, 76/Alld./2013, 77/Alld/2013 & 78/Alld/2013 Assessment Year: 2005-06,2006-07,2007-08 & 2008-09 M/s. Kesarwani Marketing Private

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING (P) LTD,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,(OSD), ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

D E R PER Bench: These four appeals are filed by assessee, being aggrieved by separate appellate order(s) passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeas)- Allahabad, U.P. , for assessment year(s)(ay) : 2005-06 to 2008-09. ITA No.159/Alld./2013, 76/Alld./2013, 77/Alld/2013 & 78/Alld/2013 Assessment Year: 2005-06,2006-07,2007-08 & 2008-09 M/s. Kesarwani Marketing Private

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING (P) LTD,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT. C.IT,(OSD), ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

D E R PER Bench: These four appeals are filed by assessee, being aggrieved by separate appellate order(s) passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeas)- Allahabad, U.P. , for assessment year(s)(ay) : 2005-06 to 2008-09. ITA No.159/Alld./2013, 76/Alld./2013, 77/Alld/2013 & 78/Alld/2013 Assessment Year: 2005-06,2006-07,2007-08 & 2008-09 M/s. Kesarwani Marketing Private

SBW UDYOG LIMITED,,PRAYAGRAJ vs. DCIT, CIR-1,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh.Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2021-22 Sbw Udyog Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 44, Thornhill Road, Prayagraj Tax, Circle-1, Prayagraj Pan:Aadcs2883B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. N.C. Agrawal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .03.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 31.01.2024, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cpc Bengaluru, Under Section, 143(1) Dated 17.10.2022. Subsequently, The Said Appeal Was Migrated To The Nfac & Later On, The Appeal Proceedings Were Transferred To The Additional / Jcit(A), Aurangabad, Who Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because, Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India Has Observed In The Notice Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Reads As Under:- "The Income Tax Department Recognizes & Is Sensitive To The Hardships Being Faced By Taxpayers In Coping With The Challenges Posed By Covid-19 Pandemic." Consequently, Appeal Is Liable To Be Allowed.

D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed against the orders of the ld. CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31.01.2024, dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the orders of the CPC Bengaluru, under section, 143(1) dated 17.10.2022. Subsequently, the said appeal was migrated to the NFAC

JYOTI MEDISERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, ,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

43 (iii) [2004] 267 ITR 577 (Karnataka) Rishabchand Bhansali vs. DCIT (iv) [2000] 243 ITR 425 (AP) (v) [2001] 252 ITR 712 (Madras), Lakshmi Jewellery vs. DCIT (H) Learned Departmental Representatives further contended that the approval u/s 153D of the Act was akin to approval u/s 274(2) of the Act and further that the approval