UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

10 Taxmann.com 181) as under- ITA No.314 & 317/LKW/2017 Page 16 of 38 Only when the claim of the assessee for deduction is u/s 32 to section 38, the provisions of Section 40(a) (ia) can be pressed into service to disallow

SHILPA KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Shilpa Khandelwal V. The Dy. Cit-2 330, Kalibari Bareilly Bareilly (U.P) Tan/Pan:Arypk5700A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 04 2025 O R D E R

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) to the tune of Rs.31,87,048/-. From the documents furnished by the assessee, the AO noticed that during the year under consideration, the assessee had sold 5000 shares of Gold Line International Finvest Ltd. @ Rs.490/- and 3000 shares of Kappac Pharma @ Rs.270/- and had earned Long

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

SHRI UMA SHANKER DHANDHANIA,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(5), KANPUR

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

section 10(38)was liable to be allowed; l) The AO failed to appreciate that the amount received on sale of shares is neither sale nor an advance; m) The amount received, being properly explained, neither being unexplained nor undisclosed; the appellant's claim for exemption u/s 10(38) be allowed. 5. Because the CIT(A) has erred on facts

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

38,829/- on payment basis in subsequent assessment year 2013-2014 as per section 43B of the Act. The AO is also directed to allow the amount of Rs. 29,99,625/- on payment basis in the year of payment. 6(1) Ground of appeal number 3 is as under- 3. That the Ld. A.O. was wrong in disallowing

SMT. SABREEN,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed and Stay Application is dismissed as infructuous

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

38 of Section 10 as well as finding and observations in paras 4 and 5 of the appellate order are based upon presumption and surmises simply concluding that the case was within the ambit of 'Penny Stocks' not having any place under the provisions of tax laws. 3. That the learned CIT(A) /A.O. failed to appreciate that the transaction

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

In the result, appeals vide I

disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was made\nsolely on the basis of investment by Assessee Company in SPVs without\nverifying objects of investment and understanding of relevant provision of law.\nIt is also submitted that section 14A carries heading 'Expenditure\nincurred in relation to income not includible in total income'\n\nAs per Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT ,, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Cit (Exemptions) V. M/S Indian Institute Of Management Lucknow Lucknow Off Sitapur Road, Prabandh Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaati2622Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S. K. Madhuk, Cit (Dr) Respondent By: Shri Ashish Kapoor, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 20 08 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 08 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Revenue’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Lucknow, Dated 8/5/2018, For The Assessment Year 2010-11, Taking The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee & Deleting The Addition Of Rs.4,05,76,925/- Made On Account Of The Assessee Had Not Maintained Separate Books Of Accounts In Respect Of The Business Activities, Which Are Not Incidental To The Objectives Of The Society. 2. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Following Other Year'S Appellate Order & Thereby

disallowed exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) on the said income for the reason that appellant filed to apply ad invest or deposits its income in accordance with provisions of (a) and (b) of third provision of section 10(23C) of the Act. This income was added to total income of appellant as Income from Other Sources.  Interest and Income from

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we don't see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act.” Page 22 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we don't see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act.” Page 22 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we don't see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act.” Page 22 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

10(38) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 11,23,13,046/- on the sale of scrip Prem Cap for Rs. 11,53,13,047/- which was purchased for Rs. 30,00,000/-. On identical reasoning as in the two earlier cases, the AO went on to hold that the amount of LTCG being claimed as exempt

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. ANKUR ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

10(38) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 11,23,13,046/- on the sale of scrip Prem Cap for Rs. 11,53,13,047/- which was purchased for Rs. 30,00,000/-. On identical reasoning as in the two earlier cases, the AO went on to hold that the amount of LTCG being claimed as exempt

ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. MOHIT ANAND, BAREILLY

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

10(38) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 11,23,13,046/- on the sale of scrip Prem Cap for Rs. 11,53,13,047/- which was purchased for Rs. 30,00,000/-. On identical reasoning as in the two earlier cases, the AO went on to hold that the amount of LTCG being claimed as exempt

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. The Dy. Cit Nigam Ltd. Range Vi Visheshwaraiya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Dy. Cit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Range Vi Nigam Ltd. Lucknow Visheshwaraiya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan: Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Department By: Smt. Sheela Chopra, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04 10 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 12 2021 O R D E R

38 of the Act; no such exclusion is envisaged in section 43B of the Act which is applicable to even the expenditure incurred for earning income under section 28 of the Act as well. The expenditure disallowed under section 43B of the Act is allowable in the year of payment. The claim of the appellant that expenditure was incurred

M/S U.P RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. The Dy. Cit Nigam Ltd. Range Vi Visheshwaraiya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Dy. Cit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Range Vi Nigam Ltd. Lucknow Visheshwaraiya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan: Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Department By: Smt. Sheela Chopra, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04 10 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 12 2021 O R D E R

38 of the Act; no such exclusion is envisaged in section 43B of the Act which is applicable to even the expenditure incurred for earning income under section 28 of the Act as well. The expenditure disallowed under section 43B of the Act is allowable in the year of payment. The claim of the appellant that expenditure was incurred

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

section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale of securities be treated

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

section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale of securities be treated

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

section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 7. That the alleged bogus share transaction cannot be taxed u/s 69A as the appellant has given the documentary evidence of sale and purchase at prevailing market rate on stock exchange. 8. That there has been no evidence as to the why the gain from the sale of securities be treated