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 (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

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.

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

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

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. 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

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

GENUS POWER INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITTED,NOIDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTERAL), LUCKNOW

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

section and that you fulfilled the requisite\ncondition, stipulations, rules etc. Please furnish requisite documentary\nevidence based on which such deduction has been claimed. In case of your\nfailure to furnish these details, the corresponding direction claimed is\nliable to be disallowed.\n\nLarge deduction claimed u/s 35 2AA 35 2AB 35 CCC and 35 CCD: Please\nfurnish the details

MR. PAWAN KUMAR SINGH,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2009-10 Mr Pawan Kumar Singh V. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1) 848, Tilak Colony, Subhash Nagar, Bareilly (Up). Bareilly. Pan:Ccrps4435G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 04 2025 O R D E R

35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer" shall have the same

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

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 142(1)\nCopy of Reply filed in response to notice\nu/s

AYYUB JAFRI,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

35 wherein he had claimed long term capital gain on sale of plots of amount that had been inherited from his ancestors prior to 1.04.2001 and which were situated at 370/10 KHA, Hata Noor Beg, Shahadatganj, Chowk, Lucknow and he had incurred expenses on improvements of plots by doing land filling and levelling aggregating to Rs. 1,04,038/- during

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

35,900/- on a total turnover of Rs.172,62,86,685/-. According to the Assessing Officer, in the computation of income, the assessee had claimed depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs.40,016,103/- (Rs.1,01,82,132 + Rs.2,95,30,939 + Rs.3,03,032). The assessee had also filed the Tax Audit

HARCHARAN SINGH,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(5), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.201/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 Harcharan Singh V. Ito-2(5) 118/208, Kaushalpuri, Kanpur- Kanpur 208012. Pan:Anxps2189N अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: None प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Deepak Yadav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10 06 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 06 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

section 50C were not applicable to the same (at the time of sale); 5. the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in computing/upholding the computation of Long Term Capital Gain at Rs.1,56,21,620/- by treating the sale plots of land as sale of capital asset simpliciter (instead of treating the same as stock-in-trade

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year:2014-15 Rakesh Kumar Gupta V. The Income Tax Officer House No.51, Kaharan Ward 2(3) Nawabganj, Bareilly (U.P) Bareilly Tan/Pan:Aaupg6815 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

1) of the Act and also under section 131 of the Act issued to the wife of the assessee, the AO computed the Long Term Capital Gain of the assessee for the year under consideration as under: Full value of consideration u/s. 50C of the Act : 84,23,000/- Less: Indexed cost of acquisition 32,50,000/632X939

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

gains fall under clause (a) of section 10(37) of the Act. vi. Appellant never claimed exemption from income tax for transfer of agricultural land, while claiming said land being not a capital asset. Whereas, appellant claimed exemption for the very reason that land transferred is an agricultural land, which is a capital asset. Income tax on transfer of such