SHRI KINGSHUK GHOSHAL,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-6(5), LUCKNOW

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Kinghshuk Ghoshal V. The Ito 6(5) E-402, Halwasiya Utsav Enclave Lucknow Opposite Hal, Faizabad Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Affpg3258L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 26.12.2017, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Lucknow-3 (Ld. Cit(A)) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.11.2012, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,05,233/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noticed That The Assessee Was Earning Interest Income From Saving Bank Deposits & Fdrs & That The Assessee Had Claimed Exemption Of Rs.71,54,619/- Under Section 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). During The

5) E-402, Halwasiya Utsav Enclave Lucknow Opposite HAL, Faizabad Road Lucknow TAN/PAN:AFFPG3258L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against order dated 26.12.2017, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Lucknow

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

D. R., on the other hand, heavily relied on the orders of the authorities below and submitted that various assessees have been taking Long Term Capital Gain through managed transactions with the help of exit providers, operators of various scrips and in this respect our attention was invited to the investigation report wherein the investigation was carried

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

5,41,223/- by treating the exempt capital gain income as unexplained income under the head income from undisclosed sources without invoking any specific section of income tax act, 1961, primarily on the basis of report received from investigation wing and for the reason that the appellant name was appearing in ITD system of Penny Stocks. A perusal

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

Capital Gain on the scrip Twenty First Century Private Limited. The Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings show caused the assessees as to why the claim of their exempt income be not rejected. The Assessing Officer has relied on the statements of Shri Pradeep Kumar Garg, Anil Kumar Khemka, Abhiset Basu, Sajendra Mookim, Deepak Kumar Choudhary etc. to dislodge the claim

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

Capital Gain on the scrip Twenty First Century Private Limited. The Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings show caused the assessees as to why the claim of their exempt income be not rejected. The Assessing Officer has relied on the statements of Shri Pradeep Kumar Garg, Anil Kumar Khemka, Abhiset Basu, Sajendra Mookim, Deepak Kumar Choudhary etc. to dislodge the claim

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

Capital Gain on the scrip Twenty First Century Private Limited. The Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings show caused the assessees as to why the claim of their exempt income be not rejected. The Assessing Officer has relied on the statements of Shri Pradeep Kumar Garg, Anil Kumar Khemka, Abhiset Basu, Sajendra Mookim, Deepak Kumar Choudhary etc. to dislodge the claim

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

Capital Gain on the scrip Twenty First Century Private Limited. The Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings show caused the assessees as to why the claim of their exempt income be not rejected. The Assessing Officer has relied on the statements of Shri Pradeep Kumar Garg, Anil Kumar Khemka, Abhiset Basu, Sajendra Mookim, Deepak Kumar Choudhary etc. to dislodge the claim

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

Capital Gain on the scrip Twenty First Century Private Limited. The Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings show caused the assessees as to why the claim of their exempt income be not rejected. The Assessing Officer has relied on the statements of Shri Pradeep Kumar Garg, Anil Kumar Khemka, Abhiset Basu, Sajendra Mookim, Deepak Kumar Choudhary etc. to dislodge the claim

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

17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 (B) I.T.A. No.454/Lkw/2020 Appeal vide I.T.A. No.454/Lkw/2020 for assessment year 1017-18 has been filed by Revenue in which tax effect of disputed issues is Rs.59,39,941/-. This tax effect is below the minimum monetary limit of Rs.60 lacs prescribed by CBDT vide Circular No.09/2024 for filing the appeal

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 (B) I.T.A. No.454/Lkw/2020 Appeal vide I.T.A. No.454/Lkw/2020 for assessment year 1017-18 has been filed by Revenue in which tax effect of disputed issues is Rs.59,39,941/-. This tax effect is below the minimum monetary limit of Rs.60 lacs prescribed by CBDT vide Circular No.09/2024 for filing the appeal

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

17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 (B) I.T.A. No.454/Lkw/2020 Appeal vide I.T.A. No.454/Lkw/2020 for assessment year 1017-18 has been filed by Revenue in which tax effect of disputed issues is Rs.59,39,941/-. This tax effect is below the minimum monetary limit of Rs.60 lacs prescribed by CBDT vide Circular No.09/2024 for filing the appeal

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

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

d) The shares so acquired held in demat account; e) The shares were sold to the companies through the brokers; f) The brokers through whom shares had been sold, had duly accepted such sales (by the "appellant); g) The sale of shares was supported by the bills and contract notes issued by the brokers and further supported by corresponding movement

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

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 10(38) of the income Tax Act, 1961, any Capital Gain arising out of transfer of Long Term Capital Asset being an equity share in a company or a unit of an equity oriented fund, on which STT is paid, is exempt from taxation point of view. This means that if shares of any company are held for more

SHILPA KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Shilpa Khandelwal V. The Dy. Cit-2 330, Kalibari Bareilly Bareilly (U.P) Tan/Pan:Arypk5700A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 04 2025 O R D E R

Capital Gain on sale of shares claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. ITA No.313/LKW/2023 Page 4 of 17 4. BECAUSE the report of investigation carried out by the Directorate of Investigation as has been made the basis for drawing adverse inference for denying/upholding the denial of claim for exemption under section 10(38) was not admissible even

SHRI RAMESH VERMA,BAHRAICH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\, GONDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2015-16 Ramesh Verma V. The Acit C/O Verma Ultrasound & Ct Scan Gonda Hospital Crossing Bahrain Tan/Pan:Abgpv8227K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashok Seth, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 05 2022 O R D E R

17. As per section 70 (1) of the I.T. Act, where the net result for any Assessment Year in respect of any source falling under any head of income, other than “Capital Gains”, is a loss, the assessee shall be entitled to have the amount of such loss set off against his income from any other source under the same

PANKAJ AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. THE AO SPECIAL RANGE,, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Pankaj Agarwal, 7/151, Ratan Vs. The Assessing Officer, Majestic, Opp. Sony World, Special Range, Kanpur- Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur-208002 208001 Pan: Abnpa4816E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 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 Dated 9.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao, Special Range, Kanpur, Passed Under Section 143(3) On 26.09.2019. 2. It Is Seen From The Record That The Appeal Is Delayed By 2 Days. However, Since The Date Of Filing Is Preceded By Saturday & Sunday, Wherein The Offices Of The Itat Were Closed, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Treating The Loss Of Rs.42,17,895/- Being Loss On Account Of Trading In Derivatives As A Capital Loss As Against Business Loss Claimed By The Assessee, Which Finding Of The Ao Being Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Addition Made Be Deleted.

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 dated 9.01.2024 wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the orders of the ld. AO, Special Range, Kanpur, passed under section 143(3) on 26.09.2019. 2. It is seen

HARVINDER KUMAR SAHNI,LAKHIMPUR-KHERI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Harvinder Kumar Sahni V. The Dy. Cit Punjabi Colony Sitapur Gola Gokaran Nath Lakhimpur Kheri Tan/Pan:Autps9076M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16 03 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 03 2020 O R D E R

D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Bareilly dated 30/9/2015 for assessment year 2011-12, taking the following grounds: 1. The Ld. C.I.T. (A), Bareilly erred on facts and in law in upholding Long Term Capital Gain on Sale of Agriculture Land without appreciating that the Agriculture