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

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

5) of the Act, without appreciating that no tax was\ndeductible on the provisions created by the Appellant.\n4.\nThat on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nLd. CIT (A) erred in confirming penalty levied by the Ld. AO u/s\n271C of the Act, disallowance of LTC/LTA under section 10

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

5) of the Act, without appreciating that no tax was\ndeductible on the provisions created by the Appellant.\n\n4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nLd. CIT (A) erred in confirming penalty levied by the Ld. AO u/s\n271C of the Act, disallowance of LTC/LTA under section 10

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section I.T.A. Nos.487 to 491/Lkw/2024 5 10(5) of the Act, without appreciating that no tax was deductible on the provisions created by the Appellant. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming penalty levied by the Ld. AO u/s 271C of the Act, disallowance

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

10 | P\na ge shows that the provision pertains to determination of the\nquantum of deductible income in the 'gross total income'. Section\n80AB cannot be read to be curtailing the width of Section 80-IA. It is\nrelevant to take note of Section 80A(1) which stipulates that in\ncomputation of the 'total income' of an assessee, deductions specified

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

In the result, appeals vide I

10 | P\na ge shows that the provision pertains to determination of the\nquantum of deductible income in the 'gross total income'. Section\n80AB cannot be read to be curtailing the width of Section 80-IA. It is\nrelevant to take note of Section 80A(1) which stipulates that in\ncomputation of the 'total income' of an assessee, deductions specified

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

5) read with Section 2 (7) of the Act.\n10. BECAUSE in any case the issue with regard to the applicability of charging\nprovisions (as distinct from the applicability of Interest Tax Act, 1974 itself) has\nbeen decided on a wholly wrong premise and the sums aggregating Rs.\n11,75,75,706/- can not be said to be representing \"chargeable

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

5) read with Section 2 (7) of the Act. 10. BECAUSE in any case the issue with regard to the applicability of charging provisions (as distinct from the applicability of Interest Tax Act, 1974 itself) has been decided on a wholly wrong premise and the sums aggregating Rs. 11,75,75,706/- can not be said to be representing "chargeable

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

5)", "251", "194Q", "69C", "80AB", "80A", "80C", "80U", "10(34)", "10(33)", "154", "263", "129", "142(1)", "143(2)", "144" ], "issues": "Whether interest income on FDRs for security is deductible under Section 80IA and whether disallowance

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

10(33) of the Act and thus, not forming a part of the total income, and therefore the interest paid thereon had to be disallowed under Section 14A. 6. It may be mentioned at this stage that the Assessee has made a distinction between investments in unquoted shares, which was in the sum of Rs.4,16,155/-, and investments

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

10(33) of the Act and thus, not forming a part of the total income, and therefore the interest paid thereon had to be disallowed under Section 14A. 6. It may be mentioned at this stage that the Assessee has made a distinction between investments in unquoted shares, which was in the sum of Rs.4,16,155/-, and investments

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

10(33) of the Act and thus, not forming a part of the total income, and therefore the interest paid thereon had to be disallowed under Section 14A. 6. It may be mentioned at this stage that the Assessee has made a distinction between investments in unquoted shares, which was in the sum of Rs.4,16,155/-, and investments

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, could be regarded as the satisfaction of the ld. AO for invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act. Therefore, he held that the ld. AO had rightly invoked the provisions of section 14A of the Act and he dismissed the appeal of the assessee in this regard. On other issues involved in the assessments

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. 143(3) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order passed under section 250 of the Act dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5

STATE BANK OF INDIA,SMECC, ZONAL OFFICE,KANPUR vs. ACIT9TDS), KANPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 State Bank Of India V. Dcit (Tds) The Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar- 7/119, Radiance Town, 208001. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar-208002. Pan:Knps02318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 State Bank Of India V. Addl. Cit (Tds) The Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar- 7/119, Radiance Town, 208001. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar-208002. Pan: Knps02318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21 07 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 07 2025 O R D E R

section 10(5) of the Act, without appreciating that no tax was deductible on the provisions created by the Appellant. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the td. CIT (A) erred in confirming penalty levied by the Ld. AO u/s 271C of the Act, disallowance

STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE,KANPUR vs. DY. CIT (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 State Bank Of India V. Dcit (Tds) The Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar- 7/119, Radiance Town, 208001. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar-208002. Pan:Knps02318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 State Bank Of India V. Addl. Cit (Tds) The Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar- 7/119, Radiance Town, 208001. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar-208002. Pan: Knps02318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21 07 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 07 2025 O R D E R

section 10(5) of the Act, without appreciating that no tax was deductible on the provisions created by the Appellant. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the td. CIT (A) erred in confirming penalty levied by the Ld. AO u/s 271C of the Act, disallowance

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

5. The Tribunal has found that in the order passed by the PCIT, Explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act, 1961 is made applicable. The Tribunal observed that the PCIT has not mentioned in the show cause notice to invoke the Explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act 1961. Therefore, by invocation of Explanation in the order without

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 u/s 11, Page 7 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 12 and 13 read with first Proviso to section 2(15) on the ground that the appellant is hit by the provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961.” C.O.No.02/Lkw/2020 “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred

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 u/s 11, Page 7 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 12 and 13 read with first Proviso to section 2(15) on the ground that the appellant is hit by the provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961.” C.O.No.02/Lkw/2020 “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred