ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

15), trade is sufficient, therefore, this aspect is not required to be examined in detail. The word "business" is the broadest term and is encompasses trade, commerce and other activities. Section 2(13) of the Income-tax Act defines the term "business" as under: Page 43 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) "2. Definitions.-. . .(13) 'business' includes any trade

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

15), trade is sufficient, therefore, this aspect is not required to be examined in detail. The word "business" is the broadest term and is encompasses trade, commerce and other activities. Section 2(13) of the Income-tax Act defines the term "business" as under: Page 43 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) "2. Definitions.-. . .(13) 'business' includes any trade

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

15), trade is sufficient, therefore, this aspect is not required to be examined in detail. The word "business" is the broadest term and is encompasses trade, commerce and other activities. Section 2(13) of the Income-tax Act defines the term "business" as under: Page 43 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) "2. Definitions.-. . .(13) 'business' includes any trade

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

15), trade is sufficient, therefore, this aspect is not required to be examined in detail. The word "business" is the broadest term and is encompasses trade, commerce and other activities. Section 2(13) of the Income-tax Act defines the term "business" as under: Page 43 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) "2. Definitions.-. . .(13) 'business' includes any trade

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

15), trade is sufficient, therefore, this aspect is not required to be examined in detail. The word "business" is the broadest term and is encompasses trade, commerce and other activities. Section 2(13) of the Income-tax Act defines the term "business" as under: Page 43 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) "2. Definitions.-. . .(13) 'business' includes any trade

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

15), trade is sufficient, therefore, this aspect is not required to be examined in detail. The word "business" is the broadest term and is encompasses trade, commerce and other activities. Section 2(13) of the Income-tax Act defines the term "business" as under: Page 43 of 242 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) "2. Definitions.-. . .(13) 'business' includes any trade

ARUN KUMAR MAURYA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

capital gains would not be assessable at the hands of the firm cannot be accepted, yet for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph in the absence of notice under section 143(2) reassessment could not be held to be validly made. Thus, the order of the Tribunal is to be set aside”. To further quote from this order

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

gains from business and profession’. The net surplus disclosed by the assessee of Rs.2,24,59,203/- in the income and expenditure account was therefore added to the total income of the assessee and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. 11. Moving on further, the ld. AO observed that the assessee had transferred funds to the infrastructure

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

2(15) of the Act, 1961. \n26. Finally, in his orders for the A.Ys.2017-18 and 2018-19, the ld. CIT(A) dealt with the \nclaim of depreciation claimed by the assessee and disallowed by the ld. AO in accordance with \nthe provisions of section 11(6) of the Act. The ld. CIT observed that as the exemption under

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

In the result all six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

2(15) of the Act, 1961. \n26. Finally, in his orders for the A.Ys.2017-18 and 2018-19, the ld. CIT(A) dealt with the \nclaim of depreciation claimed by the assessee and disallowed by the ld. AO in accordance with \nthe provisions of section 11(6) of the Act. The ld. CIT observed that as the exemption under

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

2(15) of the Act, 1961.\n26. Finally, in his orders for the A.Ys.2017-18 and 2018-19, the ld. CIT(A) dealt with the \nclaim of depreciation claimed by the assessee and disallowed by the ld. AO in accordance with \nthe provisions of section 11(6) of the Act. The ld. CIT observed that as the exemption under

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P FOREST CORPORATION, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2016-17

capital expenditure amounting to Rs.5,16,73,527/- and disallowance of repayment of loans amounting to Rs.16,99,99,664/. 5. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law and facts by allowing exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the assessee is involved in the activities of trade/commerce/business and is as such

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.

2(47) contemplates the extinguishment of the rights in a capital asset as distinct and independent of such extinguishment consequent upon the transfer. Thus, he held that on expiry of derivatives there was a transfer of a capital asset. He further observed that securities transaction tax have been paid. Furthermore, She held that as derivative did not come under equity

NIRMAL SINGH,AYODHYA vs. ITO WARD-1,, FAIZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria & Sa. No. 07/Lkw/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita. No.83/Lkw/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Nirmal Singh The Income Tax Officer, V. 15/2/16, Janki Ghat, Ayodhya- Ward-1, 224123, Faizabad (Up). Cinema Road, Faizabad- New-224001. Pan:Bdsps4165C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri. Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 24 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10 10 2024 O R D E R

15,320/-. In the aforesaid assessment order, an addition of Rs.2,14,22,053/- was made u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act and an addition of Rs.49,11,947/- was made towards Short Term Capital Gain (STCG). The aforesaid additions have been made by the Assessing Officer (“AO”), in respect of transactions in immovable property. The assessee

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

Capital Gain [hereinafter referred to as ‘LTCG’] under Section 10(38) of the Act. He inter alia concluded that the assessee had adopted a colorable device of LTCG to avoid tax and accordingly framed the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act at the total income of Rs. 1,09,12,060/-, making an addition

SHIMLA PROPERTIES,LUCKNOW vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 Shimla Properties V. The Pcit 30C, Datiya House Lucknow Khursheed Bagh Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ablfs9732M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16 08 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 09 2022 O R D E R

15. The heads of income declared by the assessee for the year under consideration are as below: 1. House property Rs.26,49,780/- 2. Short Term Capital Gains Rs.9,03,233/- 3. Other Sources Rs.74,901/- 16. The reopening of the assessment relates to escapement of income, amounting to Rs.6,64,000/- towards share transactions with M/s NYSSA Corporation

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

Capital Gain [hereinafter referred to as ‘LTCG’] under Section 10(38) of the Act. He inter alia concluded that the assessee had adopted a colorable device of LTCG to avoid tax and accordingly framed the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act at the total income of Rs. 1,09,12,060/-, making an addition

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)

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