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

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

1) Kanpur in ITA No. 501/Lkw/2019 dated 16-12-2020 for the A.Y. 2015- 16 decided by the Hon'ble ITAT Lucknow Bench 'A' Lucknow. ii) Smt. Sabreen vs. ITO -3(4), Kanpur in ITA No.498/Lkw/2019 vide order dated 20/07/2021. iii) Shri Surendra Kumar Gupta vs. Dy.CIT in ITA No.125/Lkw/2019, order dated 13/07/2021 iv) Shri Jai Prakash Sharma

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.

35,000/- under section 14A, the assessee submitted that the assessee had not claimed any expenditure with respect to exempt income in the income and expenditure account. There were no borrowed funds and there was no finding by the ld. AO that any expenditure had been incurred 9 A.Y. 2012-13 Pankaj Agarwal by the assessee for the purposes

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

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

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

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

iv) The shares of the company listed with Delhi Stock Exchange, v) The shares of Focus Industrial Resources Ltd. Were sold through share broker MKM Finsec Pvt, Ltd., 301 Dhaka Chamber 2058/39 Naiwal, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-11005. vi) The details of sale are on record. The details of number of shares and their sale rate are on record

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

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

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

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

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

iv) of the Act. The contention of the petitioner's counsel if accepted would mean that the words "any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business" in the first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act have to be ignored. This is not permissible because the High Court cannot substitute or ignore

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

iv) of the Act. The contention of the petitioner's counsel if accepted would mean that the words "any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business" in the first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act have to be ignored. This is not permissible because the High Court cannot substitute or ignore

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

iv) of the Act. The contention of the petitioner's counsel if accepted would mean that the words "any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business" in the first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act have to be ignored. This is not permissible because the High Court cannot substitute or ignore

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

iv) of the Act. The contention of the petitioner's counsel if accepted would mean that the words "any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business" in the first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act have to be ignored. This is not permissible because the High Court cannot substitute or ignore

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

iv) of the Act. The contention of the petitioner's counsel if accepted would mean that the words "any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business" in the first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act have to be ignored. This is not permissible because the High Court cannot substitute or ignore

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

iv) of the Act. The contention of the petitioner's counsel if accepted would mean that the words "any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business" in the first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act have to be ignored. This is not permissible because the High Court cannot substitute or ignore