KAMAL KANT 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.

ii) at Rs. 12,35,930/-. Accordingly, the ld. AO also made this addition to the income of the assessee under section 14A. 5. Aggrieved with the said assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal with the ld. CIT(A), Kanpur on 23.02.2015, which was subsequently transferred to the NFAC. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that

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

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)

capital gain and having fulfilled all prescribed conditions and investment made in construction of residential house amounting to Rs.12033877.00/- in the present case during March 2015 F.Y. 2015-16 as well as till 31st July 2016 which is within prescribed period of sometime before and three years from the date of sale. 3. Because on the facts

SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

35,200/-.\nThe assessee is carrying on business of edible oil. Besides business\nincome, he draws salary from M/s R.K. Agro Oil (P) Ltd., and from M/s\nGanpati Edible Oil (P) Ltd., income from house property and other sources.\nReturn declaring total income of Rs.13,20,260/- was e-filed on through\nacknowledgement no.499539771280912. The said return was processed\nunder

ABHAY BENARA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Abhay Benara, The Deputy V. Commissioner Of Income C/O 24/4, The Mall Kanpur-208001. Tax, Central Circle-1 Kanpur. Pan:Adlpb2007Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs.1,06,05,092/- and income from other sources of Rs.8,35,384/-, disallowance of interest of Rs.12,79,271/- and the addition of Rs.32,65,300/- u/s 68. The AO also made an addition of Rs.15,643/- being the income of minor. Aggrieved by this, the assessee preferred an appeal before

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

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

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

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

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

ii)the Hon'ble ITAT in its own case, in ITA No. 703/Luc/03, order dated 25.07.2005 has already held that the object of the appellant are the objects of General Public Utility falling in the definition of charitable purposes as given in section 2(15) of the I.T. Act (iii) accordingly, the appellant has already been held to be eligible

M/S RAJ KUMAR SINGH & CO.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

ii) Machinery Revaluation 1,12,40,729 (iii) Shares revaluation 12,89,58,000 (iv) Conversion of investments into 11,68,08,126 stock in trade ----------------- 26,03,06,855 Less: Reversal of goodwill and machinery revaluation done during the year. This entry has been reversed during the year. 1,47,40,729 24,55,66,126 If the above

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

Capital Gain was computed amounting to Rs.68,98,817/- and claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act against the investment made in house property situated at 57, Laxmanpuri, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. However, Ld. AO rejected the claim of assessee on following ground being details filed in ITR in AL schedule:- i. opp. VikasBhawan, Pant Nagar, Civil Lines, Gonda