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.

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

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT, (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

business income. The net profit supported by\nbooks of accounts and declared by the appellant is liable to\nbe accepted.\n\n3. Because the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in and applying NP Rate\nof 7% against NP Rate 11% applied by the AO without any\nbasis and sustaining addition of Rs.29,001/- in civil\nconstruction business. The sustained addition

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

income, and the treatment of purchases as bogus. Multiple appeals were filed by both the Revenue and the assessee.", "held": "The Tribunal ruled that interest earned on FDRs kept for security/retention money, even if related to business, is not 'derived from' eligible business and thus not deductible under Section 80IA. The disallowance

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

disallowing exemption U/s 11 to the appellant, holding its income as taxable business income and thereby sustaining addition of surplus

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (FORMELY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),LUCKNOW vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result all six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

disallowing exemption U/s 11 \nto the appellant, holding its income as taxable business income and thereby sustaining \naddition of surplus

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

disallowing exemption U/s 11 \nto the appellant, holding its income as taxable business income and thereby sustaining \naddition of surplus

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

disallowing exemption U/s 11 \nto the appellant, holding its income as taxable business income and thereby sustaining \naddition of surplus

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.

disallowed the deduction claimed against business income in view of the assessee’s claim that the loss was a business

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowed by Assessing Officer. The addition confirmed to the extent of Rs.31,64,146/- is liable to be deleted. 3. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts & law while not considering total income computed by Assessing Officer at Rs.1,84,83,76,293/- subsequently rectified 154/147/143(3) on 15/05/2023 at Rs.1,67,54,56,067/-.” (A.1) The issues

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

disallowed by Assessing Officer. The addition confirmed to the extent of Rs.31,64,146/- is liable to be deleted. 3. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts & law while not considering total income computed by Assessing Officer at Rs.1,84,83,76,293/- subsequently rectified 154/147/143(3) on 15/05/2023 at Rs.1,67,54,56,067/-.” (A.1) The issues

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

disallowed by Assessing Officer. The addition confirmed to the extent of Rs.31,64,146/- is liable to be deleted. 3. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts & law while not considering total income computed by Assessing Officer at Rs.1,84,83,76,293/- subsequently rectified 154/147/143(3) on 15/05/2023 at Rs.1,67,54,56,067/-.” (A.1) The issues

AJAY ARORA,KANPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, KANPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora

business income. It is akin to a disallowance under a deduction provision, as section 37(1) (say). If the business

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

business income there was no question of any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. The assessee relied upon a number

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Business & Profession vide order u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, some further disallowances were made by applying provisions of section

LUCKNOW EVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. I.T.O., LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Business & Profession vide order u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, some further disallowances were made by applying provisions of section

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Business & Profession vide order u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, some further disallowances were made by applying provisions of section

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Business & Profession vide order u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, some further disallowances were made by applying provisions of section

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Business & Profession vide order u/s 143(3) of Income-tax Act, some further disallowances were made by applying provisions of section