PANKAJ AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. THE AO SPECIAL RANGE,, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Pankaj Agarwal, 7/151, Ratan Vs. The Assessing Officer, Majestic, Opp. Sony World, Special Range, Kanpur- Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur-208002 208001 Pan: Abnpa4816E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 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 Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 9.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao, Special Range, Kanpur, Passed Under Section 143(3) On 26.09.2019. 2. It Is Seen From The Record That The Appeal Is Delayed By 2 Days. However, Since The Date Of Filing Is Preceded By Saturday & Sunday, Wherein The Offices Of The Itat Were Closed, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Treating The Loss Of Rs.42,17,895/- Being Loss On Account Of Trading In Derivatives As A Capital Loss As Against Business Loss Claimed By The Assessee, Which Finding Of The Ao Being Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Addition Made Be Deleted.

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. The grounds of appeal are as under: - “1. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in treating the loss of Rs.42,17,895/- being loss on account of trading in derivatives as a capital loss as against business loss claimed by the assessee, which finding

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)

gain / short term capital loss through penny stocks and appeals / SLPs in such cases could be filed on merits. It was submitted that the present case was one such case and therefore, the delay in the filing of the appeal within the limitation period was beyond the control of the Department. Accordingly, it was prayed that the delay

SMT. MANJU SINGH,KANPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2), KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Manju Singh V. The Ito L-12, Gsvm Medical College Ward 3(2) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aebps3395D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 12.10.2021, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Engaged In Trading Of Shares, Securities & Mutual Funds. The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 11.09.2015, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3,05,350/-. In The Computation Of Income, The Assessee Had Claimed Rs.55,99,694/- As Exempt Income Under Section 10(38) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) On Sale Of Mutual Funds. However, As Per The Assessing Officer (Ao), The Assessee Had Earned Exempt Income Of Rs.50,81,234/- On Sale Of Mutual Funds And, Accordingly, The Assessee Had Claimed Excess

Term Capital Gain by observing that the said payment was in the nature of interest paid on borrowings, which was not an allowable expenditure. 4.0 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging impugned order of the NFAC, sustaining the addition of Rs.3,94,724/-, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. Because the CIT (A) has failed

M/S MODEL EXIM,KANPUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriam/S. Model Exim Pcit (Central) V. 624-C, Defence Colony, 7/81-B, Tilak Nagar, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010. Kanpur. Pan:Aadfm6163H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Smt Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 29 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 11 2024 O R D E R

condone the delay in filing of appeal before us and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of finished leather and sale of license. The assessee company had filed its Page 9 of 24 return of income

AMITA SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ITO RANGE-6(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Term Capital Gain and the cost of Acquisition and cost of Improvement ought to have been allowed from the Sale Consideration. 5. That the Authorities below erred on facts and in law in not allowing the credit of TDS of Rs.1,30,000/- deducted on Sale of Immoveable Property which is duly reflected in Form 26AS. 6. The present additions

BHANU PRATAP,BAREILLY vs. ITO-1(1), BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (C) The assessment order in this case was passed on 26/12/2018 u/s 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act” for short) ex-parte qua the assessee by making addition of Rs.4,27,460/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain

U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-VI, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

short]. The grounds taken by Revenue are reproduced as under: I.T.A. No.229/Lkw/2020 “1. Learned CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.12,70,62,755/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section 14A does not use the word ‘income of the year’ but ‘income under the act’ and CBDT

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

short]. The grounds taken by Revenue are reproduced as under: I.T.A. No.229/Lkw/2020 “1. Learned CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.12,70,62,755/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section 14A does not use the word ‘income of the year’ but ‘income under the act’ and CBDT

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

short]. The grounds taken by Revenue are reproduced as under: I.T.A. No.229/Lkw/2020 “1. Learned CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.12,70,62,755/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section 14A does not use the word ‘income of the year’ but ‘income under the act’ and CBDT

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

short]. The grounds taken by Revenue are reproduced as under: I.T.A. No.229/Lkw/2020 “1. Learned CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.12,70,62,755/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section 14A does not use the word ‘income of the year’ but ‘income under the act’ and CBDT

DCIT, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

short]. The grounds taken by Revenue are reproduced as under: I.T.A. No.229/Lkw/2020 “1. Learned CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.12,70,62,755/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section 14A does not use the word ‘income of the year’ but ‘income under the act’ and CBDT

RAJENDRA KUMAR LAXMI DEVI,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(2)(3), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Rajendra Kumar Laxmi Devi V. The Income Tax Officer 112/292, Swaroop Nagar, Ward-1(2)(3) Kanpur-208002. Aayakar Bhawan, 16/69, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Aachr4041N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 29 07 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31 07 2025 O R D E R

Term Capital Gain in the return claiming it exempt under section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, there was no non-disclosure of any material fact, but it was a case of difference of opinion only, as together the capital gain earned was taxable or not, such matter still pending in quantum appeal, the penalty imposed

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

delay in filing of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is admitted for hearing, on merits. (B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the assessee’s side: 15 17 19 21 (B.1) Further, a consolidated synopsis, common for all the appeals

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

delay in filing of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is admitted for hearing, on merits. (B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the assessee’s side: 15 17 19 21 (B.1) Further, a consolidated synopsis, common for all the appeals

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

delay in filing of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is admitted for hearing, on merits. (B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the assessee’s side: 15 17 19 21 (B.1) Further, a consolidated synopsis, common for all the appeals

ARUN KUMAR MAURYA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delayed and in such circumstance, there should have been a notice issued under section 143(2) as has been held in Hotel Blue Moon (supra). 4. The only question of law arising in the facts and circumstances of the case is whether notice should have been issued under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act? 5. Admittedly, the notice

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

short term, normally for 90 days, and the FDs keep\nrolling over for different LCs. The assessee was, therefore, asked to submit specific\ndetails of Bank Guarantee with accrued interest on FD allocable to the eligible\nunits.\nIn response, the assessee made the following submissions:\nImpact on profit under section 801A by direct allocation of Interest Income\nfrom FDR kept

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

In the result, appeals vide I

short term, normally for 90 days, and the FDs keep\nrolling over for different LCs. The assessee was, therefore, asked to submit specific\ndetails of Bank Guarantee with accrued interest on FD allocable to the eligible\nunits.\n\nIn response, the assessee made the following submissions:\n\nImpact on profit under section 801A by direct allocation of Interest Income\nfrom