VINAI SHUKLA,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW NEW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.624/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vinai Shukla V. Acit-1, Lucknow New 2/280, Vikas Khand Gomti Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Asnps3558C अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Ms Shweta Mittal, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Prajesh Srivastava, Sr. Dr सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21 08 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 12 09 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

Capital Gain and assessed total income at Rs.1,41,36,990/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee carried the matter an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. The assessee has taken multiples grounds including the grounds that adequate opportunity

M/S STANDARD FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT LTD,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

capital gains transaction but the same wasapproved by the ld. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax on the nextdate which evidence that the approval was granted in mechanicalmanner. Thus, in the absence of proper approval under section 153D ofthe Act, the assessment order is bad in law. 18. Further reliance is placed upon recent decision of Hon’ble Lucknow Tribunal

KAMAL KANT VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

capital gains transaction but the same wasapproved by the ld. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax on the nextdate which evidence that the approval was granted in mechanicalmanner. Thus, in the absence of proper approval under section 153D ofthe Act, the assessment order is bad in law. 18. Further reliance is placed upon recent decision of Hon’ble Lucknow Tribunal

SACHIN VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

capital gains transaction but the same wasapproved by the ld. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax on the nextdate which evidence that the approval was granted in mechanicalmanner. Thus, in the absence of proper approval under section 153D ofthe Act, the assessment order is bad in law. 18. Further reliance is placed upon recent decision of Hon’ble Lucknow Tribunal

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

1 opined that the dividend income so earned should have been charged to tax as a short- term capital gain and therefore he had reason to believe that income to the tune of Rs. 3,31,15,313.49 had escaped assessment for the assessment year 2000-01. In Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. v. CIT [2008] 175 Taxman 262 (Delhi

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

1 opined that the dividend income so earned should have been charged to tax as a short- term capital gain and therefore he had reason to believe that income to the tune of Rs. 3,31,15,313.49 had escaped assessment for the assessment year 2000-01. In Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. v. CIT [2008] 175 Taxman 262 (Delhi

PANKAJ AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. JT.CIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Pankaj Agarwal, 7/151, Ratan Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Majestic, Opp. Sony World, Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur-208002 Kanpur-208001 Pan:Abjfs4912R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma Sr Dr & Sh Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21.08.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit (A) Has The Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Loss In Trading In Derivatives Business Treating The Same As Capital Loss, As Against Assessee'S Claim Of Business Loss, To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, Which Order Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Disallowance Made By The Ao & Upheld Be Deleted. 2. Because On A Proper Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Also On The Interpretation Of The Provisions Of Sec 43(5), It Would Be Found The Loss Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Trading In Derivative Is Neither A Speculative Loss Nor A Capital Loss, The Same Should Ought To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, The Cit (A) Has Erred, In Treating The Same As Short Term Capital Loss.

1), he pointed out that in the assessment year 2010-11, the case of the assessee had been scrutinized under section 143(3) and in the assessment year 2015-16, section 148 initiated on similar grounds had been dropped. The ld. AR placed reliance on two Tribunal decisions ITA No.40/Lkw/2020 in the case of Ramesh Verma vs. ACIT, Gonda

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gain under section 10(38) of the Act was to be treated as unaccounted money of the assessee as per the provisions of section 68 of the Act. The assessment in this case was completed at Rs. 2,52,62,734/- under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act after making an addition under section

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. MOHIT ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gain under section 10(38) of the Act was to be treated as unaccounted money of the assessee as per the provisions of section 68 of the Act. The assessment in this case was completed at Rs. 2,52,62,734/- under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act after making an addition under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Capital Gain under section 10(38) of the Act was to be treated as unaccounted money of the assessee as per the provisions of section 68 of the Act. The assessment in this case was completed at Rs. 2,52,62,734/- under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act after making an addition under section

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

gains by an industry entitled to benefit\nunder Section 80-E cannot be reduced by the loss suffered by any\nother industry or industries owned by the assessee.\n15. In the case before us, there is no discussion about Section 80-\nIA(5) by the Appellate Authority, nor the Tribunal and the High Court.\nHowever, we have considered the submissions

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

In the result, appeals vide I

gains by an industry entitled to benefit\nunder Section 80-E cannot be reduced by the loss suffered by any\nother industry or industries owned by the assessee.\n\n15. In the case before us, there is no discussion about Section 80-\nIA(5) by the Appellate Authority, nor the Tribunal and the High Court.\nHowever, we have considered

M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. D/ACIT-1,CENTRAL-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

gains by an industry entitled to benefit under Section 80-E cannot be reduced by the loss suffered by any other industry or industries owned by the assessee. 15. In the case before us, there is no discussion about Section 80- IA(5) by the Appellate Authority, nor the Tribunal and the High Court. However, we have considered the submissions

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

gains by an industry entitled to benefit under Section 80-E cannot be reduced by the loss suffered by any other industry or industries owned by the assessee. 15. In the case before us, there is no discussion about Section 80- IA(5) by the Appellate Authority, nor the Tribunal and the High Court. However, we have considered the submissions

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUCKNOW, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW vs. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., VIBHUTI KHAND GOMTI NAGAR LKO

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

gains by an industry entitled to benefit under Section 80-E cannot be reduced by the loss suffered by any other industry or industries owned by the assessee. 15. In the case before us, there is no discussion about Section 80- IA(5) by the Appellate Authority, nor the Tribunal and the High Court. However, we have considered the submissions

SMT. SITA KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

1) of the Act and also includes Section 139(4) of the Act. This has been judicially settled by large number of judgments and hence the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law and liable to be set-aside and quashed. 3. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

1) of section 263 of the Act only\nafter examining \"the record of any proceedings under the Act\". The\nexpression \"record\" has also been defined in clause (b) of the Explanation\nso as to include the Commissioner. Thus, it is not only the assessment\norder but the entire record which has to be examined before arriving at a\nconclusion

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY, FAIZABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

143(3) and the assessment was completed on 28.03.2014 at the returned income. Subsequently, proceedings under section 148 were initiated by way of issue of notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessee did not initially make compliance to this notice therefore, a notice under section 142(1) was issued and upon the failure to comply, the Assessing Officer