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 (LTCG) by way of sale of shares. It is also the case of the Revenue that during the course of the search operations and post-search investigation, various incriminating documents were found and seized which disclosed that income from sale of shares of penny stock companies was disclosed as LTCG by its beneficiaries, and the LTCG earned

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

Section 68 of the Act. Upon appeal the assessee adduced evidence in the shape of contract notes/bills receipt; payments made through banking channel; contract notes and; copies of passbook of its Demat account in support of it thus asserted its claim of long term capital gain as genuine and correct. Qua the payment made by the assessee for purchase

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 to 4, is dismissed as such. 12. The next issue relates to the issue of disallowance of Rs 12,35,930/- under section 14A. The Ld. AO has invoked the provisions of Rule 8D on the grounds that the Assessee had not shown any expenditure against the exempt income earned from dividends, exempt capital gains

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

capital receipt. Accordingly, section 115BBE is not applicable on the assessee. On the basis of the above submissions, it is very clear that the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred both on the facts as well as in law in treating the corpus donation as income u/s 2(24) and making the addition u/s 68 . The order passed is not tenable

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

capital receipt. Accordingly, section 115BBE is not applicable on the assessee. On the basis of the above submissions, it is very clear that the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred both on the facts as well as in law in treating the corpus donation as income u/s 2(24) and making the addition u/s 68 . The order passed is not tenable

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

1,000 shares by assessee was unexplained, ignoring the fact that purchase of such shares was not doubted by the A.O. ?" However, in view of the finding recorded by the assessing officer for addition to be made under section 68 of the Act without allowing any deduction in respect of cost of acquisition of the shares, it necessarily flows from

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

1. Mridula Agarwal, ITSSA No. 410 & 412/Lkw/2019 dated 05.04.2022 2. Meenakshi Agarwal & Others, ITA 234-235/Lkw/2020 dated 11/08/2021 3. Sabreen, ITA 298/Lkw/2019 dated 20/07/2021 4. Uma Shanker Dhandhania, ITA 475 & 681/ Lkw/2019 dated 16/02/2021 5. Sarita Gupta, ITA 503/Lkw/2019 dated 18/01/2021 6. Achal Gupta & Others, ITA 501, 502, 505/Lkw/2019 dated 16/12/2020 4.9 We further find that Hon'ble Gujarat

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

1. Mridula Agarwal, ITSSA No. 410 & 412/Lkw/2019 dated 05.04.2022 2. Meenakshi Agarwal & Others, ITA 234-235/Lkw/2020 dated 11/08/2021 3. Sabreen, ITA 298/Lkw/2019 dated 20/07/2021 4. Uma Shanker Dhandhania, ITA 475 & 681/ Lkw/2019 dated 16/02/2021 5. Sarita Gupta, ITA 503/Lkw/2019 dated 18/01/2021 6. Achal Gupta & Others, ITA 501, 502, 505/Lkw/2019 dated 16/12/2020 4.9 We further find that Hon'ble Gujarat

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

1. Mridula Agarwal, ITSSA No. 410 & 412/Lkw/2019 dated 05.04.2022 2. Meenakshi Agarwal & Others, ITA 234-235/Lkw/2020 dated 11/08/2021 3. Sabreen, ITA 298/Lkw/2019 dated 20/07/2021 4. Uma Shanker Dhandhania, ITA 475 & 681/ Lkw/2019 dated 16/02/2021 5. Sarita Gupta, ITA 503/Lkw/2019 dated 18/01/2021 6. Achal Gupta & Others, ITA 501, 502, 505/Lkw/2019 dated 16/12/2020 4.9 We further find that Hon'ble Gujarat

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

1. Mridula Agarwal, ITSSA No. 410 & 412/Lkw/2019 dated 05.04.2022 2. Meenakshi Agarwal & Others, ITA 234-235/Lkw/2020 dated 11/08/2021 3. Sabreen, ITA 298/Lkw/2019 dated 20/07/2021 4. Uma Shanker Dhandhania, ITA 475 & 681/ Lkw/2019 dated 16/02/2021 5. Sarita Gupta, ITA 503/Lkw/2019 dated 18/01/2021 6. Achal Gupta & Others, ITA 501, 502, 505/Lkw/2019 dated 16/12/2020 4.9 We further find that Hon'ble Gujarat

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

1. Mridula Agarwal, ITSSA No. 410 & 412/Lkw/2019 dated 05.04.2022 2. Meenakshi Agarwal & Others, ITA 234-235/Lkw/2020 dated 11/08/2021 3. Sabreen, ITA 298/Lkw/2019 dated 20/07/2021 4. Uma Shanker Dhandhania, ITA 475 & 681/ Lkw/2019 dated 16/02/2021 5. Sarita Gupta, ITA 503/Lkw/2019 dated 18/01/2021 6. Achal Gupta & Others, ITA 501, 502, 505/Lkw/2019 dated 16/12/2020 4.9 We further find that Hon'ble Gujarat

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

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

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

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

1 (SC), but this decision is not applicable in the case of the assessee at all as it relates to the interpretation of Sec. 2(15) prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 1983 when the words 'not involving any activity for profit' were there under Section 2(15) after the words 'advancement of any other objects of general

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

1 (SC), but this decision is not applicable in the case of the assessee at all as it relates to the interpretation of Sec. 2(15) prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 1983 when the words 'not involving any activity for profit' were there under Section 2(15) after the words 'advancement of any other objects of general

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

1 (SC), but this decision is not applicable in the case of the assessee at all as it relates to the interpretation of Sec. 2(15) prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 1983 when the words 'not involving any activity for profit' were there under Section 2(15) after the words 'advancement of any other objects of general