BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, ADMINISTRETIVE OFFICE,KANPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

disallowance of LTC/LTA under section 10(5)\nof IT Act 1961, without appreciating that there was 'reasonable\ncause' for the said

STATE BANK OF INDIA, OVERSEAS BRANCH,KANPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

disallowance of LTC/LTA under section 10(5)\nof IT Act 1961, without appreciating that there was 'reasonable\ncause' for the said

STATE BANK OF INDIA, OVERSEAS BRANCH,KANPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

disallowance of LTC/LTA under section 10(5)\nof IT Act 1961, without appreciating that there was 'reasonable\ncause' for the said

LEKHESHWAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,AYODHYA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2016-17 Lekheshwar Educational Trust V. Income Tax Officer Lekheshwar Complex Exemption Ward Naka By Pass Lucknow Faizabad (Ayodhya) Pan:Aaatl9836B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 09 2024 O R D E R

disallowance of exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act and also rectification order passed under section 154 r.w.s

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

section 10(34) and\noffered suo-moto disallowance of administrative expenses under section 14A\nAssessing Officer on not being satisfied

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

section 10(34) and\noffered suo-moto disallowance of administrative expenses under section 14A\nAssessing Officer on not being satisfied

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

section 8(2) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 disallowing the exemption A.Ys. 1995-96 & 1996-97 M/s U.P. State Industrial Development Ltd claimed by the assessee under the Interest Tax Act and made the following additions to the chargeable interest of the assessee for the A.Y.1995-96; i. Interest received on deposits Rs. 98,43,985/- ii. Interest received

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowing the claim of exemption under Section 10(268) of the Income Tax Act to the extent of Rs. 29, 10

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

In the result, appeals vide I

section 10(34) and\noffered suo-moto disallowance of administrative expenses under section 14A\nAssessing Officer on not being satisfied

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.

disallowing the set off against commodity transactions. 4. Furthermore, the ld. AO observed that the assessee had reported huge exempt income in the form of exempt long term capital gain under section 10

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is held to be partly allowed

section 8(2) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 disallowing the exemption\nclaimed by the assessee under the Interest Tax Act and made the following\nadditions to the chargeable interest of the assessee for the A.Y.1995-96;\ni. Interest received on deposits Rs.98,43,985/-\nii. Interest received on loans and others Rs.20,13,599/-\niii. Interest received on UPSEB loan

BALAJI EDUCATIONAL WELFARE SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, CPC, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Balaji Educational Welfare V. Assessing Officer, Cpc Society Lucknow-226001. Balaji Public School Near Railway Station Nawabganj, Barabanki-225001. Pan:Aacab8487H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sharad Srivastava, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act. It is also noted that upon receiving intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act wherein the inadvertent claim made u/s. 10(23C)(vi) was disallowed

DY. C.I.T., RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. U.P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S U.P. Food & Essential Commodities Tax, Range-6, Lucknow Corp. Ltd., 17, Gokhley Marg, Lucknow- 01 Pan: Aaacu3257G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (A)- 2, Lucknow Wherein The Ld. Cit(A), Lucknow Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act For The A.Y. 2013-14 On 30.03.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-2, Lucknow Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Disallowance Made On Account Of Claim Of Exemption U/S 10(26Aab) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessee Does Not Fulfill The Criteria To Claim Exemption U/S 10(26Aab) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend Any One Or More Of The Grounds Of Appeals, As Stated Above, As & When Need To Do So Arises With The Prior Permission Of The Court.” 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Is A U.P. Government Enterprise, Claiming Exemption Under Section 10(26Aab) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. Ao Was Not Convinced That The Assessee Corporation Was Entitled To Claim The Exemption Under Section 10(26Aab) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 & Therefore

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 30.03.2016. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-2, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance made on account of claim of exemption u/s 10

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

10. Clarification in respect of disallowance under section 14A in absence of any exempt income during an assessment year 10.1 Section

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

10. Clarification in respect of disallowance under section 14A in absence of any exempt income during an assessment year 10.1 Section

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

10. Clarification in respect of disallowance under section 14A in absence of any exempt income during an assessment year 10.1 Section

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

10. Clarification in respect of disallowance under section 14A in absence of any exempt income during an assessment year 10.1 Section

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

10. Clarification in respect of disallowance under section 14A in absence of any exempt income during an assessment year 10.1 Section