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

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 failure as per the provisions of Section 273B\nof the Act 1961.\n6. That the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the Learned\nCIT(Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon'ble\nMember, ITAT.\n7. That

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 failure as per the provisions of Section 273B\nof the Act 1961.\n6.\nThat the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the Learned\nCIT(Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon'ble\nMember, ITAT.\n7.\nThat

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 failure as per the provisions of Section 273B\nof the Act 1961.\n\n6. That the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the Learned\nCIT(Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon'ble\nMember, ITAT

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(38), dividend from mutual fund under section 10(34

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

sections": [ "14A", "36(1)(v)(a)", "43B", "10(15)", "10(35)", "10(34)", "10(38)" ], "issues": "Whether the disallowances and additions

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

sections": [ "36(1)(v)(a)", "43B", "14A", "8D(2)(ii)", "10(15)", "10(35)", "10(34)", "10(38)" ], "issues": "Whether the additions made by the AO for provision for income tax, employee's PF contribution, and leave encashment were justified. Whether disallowances

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

disallowances, the Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed no exempt income was earned, and thus restored the matter to the AO to re-examine whether investments yielded taxable or exempt income.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "14A", "36(1)(v)(a)", "43B", "10(15)", "10(35)", "10(34

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

disallowance on account of alleged violation of section 13(3), the ld. AR submitted \nthat there was in fact no violation and she took us through the Government order to show that \nthe employees of the authority were only one of the many categories that had been afforded \nthese concessions. \n28. The ld. AR, then questioned the decision

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

disallowance on account of alleged violation of section 13(3), the ld. AR submitted \nthat there was in fact no violation and she took us through the Government order to show that \nthe employees of the authority were only one of the many categories that had been afforded \nthese concessions. \n28. The ld. AR, then questioned the decision

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

disallowance on account of alleged violation of section 13(3), the ld. AR submitted \nthat there was in fact no violation and she took us through the Government order to show that \nthe employees of the authority were only one of the many categories that had been afforded \nthese concessions.\n28. The ld. AR, then questioned the decision

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

section 11.\nWe notice that even while the Assessing Officer was primarily focused on trying to\ndemonstrate that the activities of the assessee parishad were not charitable, he still\nfound time to go through the accounts to observe that the assessee had applied less\nthan 85% of its receipts during the year and was therefore required to file an\napplication

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

10, the ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee did not qualify for accumulation of income under section 11(2) of the Act and therefore, held that the same was liable to be added A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19 back to the income of the assessee. On the issue of disallowance of Rs.14,96,91,583/- of capital expenditure

VIDYUT TRANSMISSION KARMACHARI VETAN BHOGI CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. CPC BANGALORE/ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

10 of the Paper book. It is prayed that the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(ii) state as under :- "An incorrect claim if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return" It is further prayed that in the Explanation to section 143(1), the Act has layed out the situations which shall be considered

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MORADABAD

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section