Search: capital gains

ISHWAR DWELLINGS PVT. LTD,KANPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 44/LKW/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 May 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2015-16

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(14)Section 263

capital asset. While computing the Book Profit u/s. 115JB, the gain of Rs.4,57,71,000/- cannot be reduced from Net Profit because the amount credited in I.T.A. No.44/Lkw/2021 Assessment Year:2015-16 16 P&L is not exempt in section 10 as the gain is not an agricultural income which is restricted to the nature of income mentioned

SHRI SUBODH AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 667/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvoateFor Respondent: Shri S. H. Usmani, CIT(D.R.)

Section 10(38)Section 111Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69

capital gains and Rs.2,75,488/- being difference in Valuation Report of the District Valuation Officer on immovable property. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the ld. First Appellate Authority. However, the appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority came to be dismissed. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal, challenging the dismissal of its appeal

SHRI SUBODH AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 669/LKW/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvoateFor Respondent: Shri S. H. Usmani, CIT(D.R.)

Section 10(38)Section 111Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69

capital gains and Rs.2,75,488/- being difference in Valuation Report of the District Valuation Officer on immovable property. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the ld. First Appellate Authority. However, the appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority came to be dismissed. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal, challenging the dismissal of its appeal

VIJAY PAL SINGH,HARDOI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC

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

ITA 56/LKW/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147ASection 50CSection 50C(2)Section 55ASection 56(2)(vii)

section 55A In the case of appellant no opinion has been recorded u/s 55A IPB PAGE 111-114] Further the appellant has requested on 05/02/2026 the JAO for copy of reference made u/s 55A as per assessment order, from the reply by the JAO dt 12/02/2026 it reveals that no reference for valuation u/s 55A or 50C has been send

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 588/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 14A

111/- on account of cane development expenses, an amount of Rs.13,76,57,437/- u/s 43B of the Act, an addition of Rs.38,52,24,618/- on account of rejection of assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 43B of the Act; an addition of Rs.1,90,36,043/- on account of disallowance of prior period expenses and further addition

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 587/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 14A

111/- on account of cane development expenses, an amount of Rs.13,76,57,437/- u/s 43B of the Act, an addition of Rs.38,52,24,618/- on account of rejection of assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 43B of the Act; an addition of Rs.1,90,36,043/- on account of disallowance of prior period expenses and further addition

DCIT, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 229/LKW/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 14A

111/- on account of cane development expenses, an amount of Rs.13,76,57,437/- u/s 43B of the Act, an addition of Rs.38,52,24,618/- on account of rejection of assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 43B of the Act; an addition of Rs.1,90,36,043/- on account of disallowance of prior period expenses and further addition

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 485/LKW/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 14A

111/- on account of cane development expenses, an amount of Rs.13,76,57,437/- u/s 43B of the Act, an addition of Rs.38,52,24,618/- on account of rejection of assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 43B of the Act; an addition of Rs.1,90,36,043/- on account of disallowance of prior period expenses and further addition

U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-VI, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 227/LKW/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 14A

111/- on account of cane development expenses, an amount of Rs.13,76,57,437/- u/s 43B of the Act, an addition of Rs.38,52,24,618/- on account of rejection of assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 43B of the Act; an addition of Rs.1,90,36,043/- on account of disallowance of prior period expenses and further addition

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 460/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

111 taxmann.com 94/267 Taxman 429/2019 SCC OnLineBom 13359, had an occasion to consider the said question and the same was accordingly answered as under:- "11. We note that the books of account of the respondent were rejected by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under section 145(3) of the Act. However, the Tribunal found in the impugned order that

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 349/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

111 taxmann.com 94/267 Taxman 429/2019 SCC OnLineBom 13359, had an occasion to consider the said question and the same was accordingly answered as under:- "11. We note that the books of account of the respondent were rejected by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under section 145(3) of the Act. However, the Tribunal found in the impugned order that

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 351/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

111 taxmann.com 94/267 Taxman 429/2019 SCC OnLineBom 13359, had an occasion to consider the said question and the same was accordingly answered as under:- "11. We note that the books of account of the respondent were rejected by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) under section 145(3) of the Act. However, the Tribunal found in the impugned order that