RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

capital was also dumped. As per RBI norms, provisions\nwere required to be made on those NPA accounts. With regard to provision for\nGovernment Securities claimed at Rs.21,60,433/-, it was submitted that an amount of\nRs.21,60,433/- had been debited to profit and loss account in the name of provision\nfor Government securities. However, it was actually

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.

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 and 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

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

250 dated 27-8-2020\n450-451\n9.\nCopy of Submissions filed before CIT(Appeals)\n452-476\n(A.3) Written submissions were filed from Revenue side, relevant portion of\nwhich is reproduced as under:\nBEFORE THE HON'BLE.. MEMBERS\nINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nA-BENCH, LUCKNOW\nIn the case of\n: M/s. APCO Infratech (P) Ltd.\nAppeal

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

In the result, appeals vide I

250 dated 27-8-2020\n450-451\n9.\nCopy of Submissions filed before CIT(Appeals)\n452-476\n\n(A.3) Written submissions were filed from Revenue side, relevant portion of\nwhich is reproduced as under:\n\nBEFORE THE HON'BLE.. MEMBERS\nINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nA-BENCH, LUCKNOW\n\nIn the case of\nAppeal No\n Assessment Year\nDate

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

1. It has been observed that within a short span of time.... the appellant managed to sell the shares with increased value of more than 300% that too when general market trend was recessive. It is fact that when any income has been claimed as exempt by the appellant, the onus lies upon him to justify the same. However

SHRI SWATANTRA KUMAR SHUKLA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Swatantra Kumar Shukla, Vs. Dy. Cit-3, Kanpur 61/139, Sita Ram Mohal, Kanpur- 208001 (U.P.) Pan: Acaps5484N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Kanpur, Passed On 29.07.2019 Wherein The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 29.12.2017 Has Been Dismissed. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That The Ld Cit(A) Was Wrong In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,39,81,850- Made By The Ao Without Any Valid Reason. 2. That The Revenue Was Wrong In Disallowing The Claim Of Long Term Capital Gains U/S 10(38) Of The Act & The Same Is Against Facts & Law. 3. That The Various Case Law Cited By The Revenue In Rejecting The Claim Is Wrong In As Much As The Facts Of The Appellant'S Case Are Distinguishable From The Cited Case Law. 4. That The Revenue Was Wrong In Invoking Section 68 Of The Act & The Same Is Not Justified & Unwarranted. 5. That It Was Wrong On The Part Of Revenue To Invoke Section 68 Of The Act In As Much As Initial Onus On The Assessee To Establish Identity, Credit Capacity Of The Creditor & Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Discharged. 6. That The Finding Of The Ld Ao That 'Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.1 39,81,850/ Claimed By The Assessee Is Held To Have Been Arranged By The Assessee Through

capital gains, holding them to be bogus. While doing so, he also discussed the movement of the script of M/s Jackson Investments Ltd., and raised question marks on the votality displayed in its price. Accordingly, he made an addition of Rs. 1,39,81,850/- on this account and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 3. Aggrieved with

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), KANPUR vs. SHRI ARVIND KUMAR GUPTA, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is held to be allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 27.11.2018, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee.The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 60,39,795/-without going into the merits

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

250 dated 01.03.2023\npassed by CIT(A), NFAC.\nCopy of Form 35 dated 18.01.2020 filed\nbefore the CIT(A) against the original\nassessment order dated 15.12.2019\nCopy of\nNotice\nu/s\n142(1)\ndated\n01.12.2019\nCopy of\nNotice\nu/s\n142(1)\ndated\n06.12.2019\nCopy of\nNotice\nu/s\n142(1)\ndated\n14.09.2019\nCopy of Reply filed in response to notice\nu/s

MOHAMMED JUNED SIDDIQUI,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Mohammed Juned Siddiqui, Vs. Dcit/Acit-1, C-84/2, Sarvodaya Nagar, Indira Lucknow New Nagar, Lucknow-226016 Pan: Aqnps6188G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Samrat Chandra Ca & Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 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)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 20.11.2024, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao Dated 30.12.2018, Passed Under Section 143(3). The Grounds Of Appeal In Both The Appeals Are As Under: - “1. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed Being Illegal. 2. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition Of Rs.11,38,70,742/- Under The Head Capital Gain, Which Was Exempt U/S 10(37) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Not Allowing The Benefit Of Provision Of Rfctlarr Act, 2013. 3. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of Rs. 11,38,70,742/- Only On The Basis Of Roving Enquiries Without Providing An Opportunity Of Being Heard. 4. Because Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of 6,98,27,344/- Under The Head Capital Gains Being Amount

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 20.11.2024, dismissing the appeals of the assessee against the order of the ld. AO dated 30.12.2018, passed under section 143(3). The grounds of appeal in both the appeals are as under: - “1. Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order

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

250 dated 27-8-2020\n450-451\n\n9.\nCopy of Submissions filed before CIT(Appeals)\n452-476\n\n(A.3) Written submissions were filed from Revenue side, relevant portion of\nwhich is reproduced as under:\n\nBEFORE THE HON'BLE.. MEMBERS\nINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nA-BENCH, LUCKNOW\nIn the case of\nAppeal No\n Assessment Year\nDate

KAPIL KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, BAREILLY , BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Kapil Khandelwal, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of 56, Moar Kothi, Gangapur, Bareilly Income Tax, Circle-I, Bareilly Pan: Aiypk4908M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 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 Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Penalty Levied Upon The Assessee Under Section 271(1)(C) By The Ld. Ao On 17.03.2022 & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because Requisite Satisfaction For Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) If The Income Tax Act 1961 Was Not Recorded In The Regular Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2017 Passed A/S 100%, Therefore, Penalty Proceedings Got Wholly Vitiated & Consequently, The Id. "Cit(A)" Ought To Have Quashed The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022, Being Illegal, Bad-In-Law & Without Jurisdiction 2. Because The Show Cause Notice For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Did Not Specify Under Which Limb Penalty Was Sought To Be Imposed I.E.. Whether On Account Of Concealment Of Income Or For Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Consequently, The Penalty Order Dated 17.03.2022 Passed By Faceless Assessing Officer Deserved To Be Quashed.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty levied upon the assessee under section 271(1)(c) by the ld. AO on 17.03.2022 and dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 2015-16. The grounds of appeal are as under: - “1. BECAUSE requisite satisfaction for levy of penalty

TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Technical Associates Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 8Th Km, Faizabad Road Tax Vijaypur, Gomti Nagar Range 6 Lucknow Lucknow Pan:Aabct7365F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Santhosh Kumar Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25 06 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 06 2024 O R D E R

1)(iii) of the Act’ in place of ‘Any Other Deductions’ and made the addition. The ld. CIT(A), vide his impugned order passed under section 250 of the Act, sustained the addition so made by the Assessing Officer. 9. So far as computation of capital gains

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

250 of the act mentions as here under: “4.5 As regards, in the next ground, the sale at a low consideration is concerned. The AO has invoked Section 56(2)(vii). This section pertains to the tax implications of transactions where immovable property is transferred for a consideration less than its stamp duty value. The appellant contended that the agreement

RAJEEV GUPTA L/H RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA,KANPUR vs. ITO-3(3), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Rajeev Gupta V. The Income Tax Officer 3(3) Legal Heir Of Late Ramesh Kanpur Chandra Gupta 133/118, Transport Nagar Kanpur Nagar Tan/Pan:Aiypg8690G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 03 2025 O R D E R

1) for the assessment year-2012-13. The Learned CIT (A) has wrongly considered the partial response as full response of the Appellant/legal heir, at the time of framing of order under section 250 of Income Tax Act 1961. 8. That the Learned assessing officer has wrongly and illegally calculated the long term capital gain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BAREILLY vs. MS SHREE BHAWANI MILLS, SHAHJAHANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed while the Cross

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S Shree Bhawani Mills, Tax, Circle-1, Bareilly Gandhi Ganj, Shahjahanpur, U.P. Pan:Aadfs8573M (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No.15/Lkw/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 M/S Shree Bhawani Mills, Gandhi Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Ganj, Shahjahanpur, U.P. Income Tax, Circle-1, Bareilly Pan:Aadfs8573M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act On 7.09.2023 Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao On 30.03.2022 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:-

250 of the Income Tax Act on 7.09.2023 allowing the appeal of the assessee against the order passed by the ld. AO on 30.03.2022 under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1 & CO No.15/LKW/2024 M/s Shree Bhawani Mills “The ld. CIT has erred in; (i). Law and on facts

SANDHYA BHADAURIA,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD5(3), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrasandhya Bhadauria V. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(3) B-19, Sector-E (New) Chandralok, Aliganj, Lucknow- Aaykar Bhawan, 5 Ashok 226001. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Ahvpb8675N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Govind Krishna, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) NFAC. has erred in law and on facts by confirming the addition of Rs. 2198591/made the learned A.O. under the head Income from Capital Gain, ignoring the fact that Rs cost of new asset within the meaning of section

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:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

250 dated 08.08.2024 vide DIN ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1067435183(1) profit was estimated at 7% after following observation:- 7.12 Considering the aforementioned discussion, case laws specially the judgment of Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Allahabad v. Target Construction Co. Ltd and the fact that depreciation of Rs. 14,99,267/- has already been disallowed

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

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

250 dated 08.08.2024 vide DIN ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1067435183(1) profit was estimated at 7% after following observation:- 7.12 Considering the aforementioned discussion, case laws specially the judgment of Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Allahabad v. Target Construction Co. Ltd and the fact that depreciation of Rs. 14,99,267/- has already been disallowed

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

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

250 dated 08.08.2024 vide DIN ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1067435183(1) profit was estimated at 7% after following observation:- 7.12 Considering the aforementioned discussion, case laws specially the judgment of Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Allahabad v. Target Construction Co. Ltd and the fact that depreciation of Rs. 14,99,267/- has already been disallowed