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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

145 taxmann.com 219 (Delhi): Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 8D, of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income (Computation of) Assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 Assessee-company claimed exempt dividend income under section 10(34) and offered suo-moto disallowance

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

In the result, appeals vide I

145\ntaxmann.com 219 (Delhi): Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule\n8D, of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 Expenditure incurred in relation to income not\nincludible in total income (Computation of) Assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14\nAssessee-company claimed exempt dividend income under section 10(34) and\noffered suo-moto disallowance

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

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

145(3) and made assessment u/s 144 of the Act, there may not be in scope for such technical disallowances. Hence, addition of Rs. 9,22,200/- may not be sustained. Issue No. 12 – AY 2021-22 Addition due to violate the provision of section

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

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

145(3) and made assessment u/s 144 of the Act, there may not be in scope for such technical disallowances. Hence, addition of Rs. 9,22,200/- may not be sustained. Issue No. 12 – AY 2021-22 Addition due to violate the provision of section

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

145(3) and made assessment u/s 144 of the Act, there may not be in scope for such technical disallowances. Hence, addition of Rs. 9,22,200/- may not be sustained. Issue No. 12 – AY 2021-22 Addition due to violate the provision of section

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

section 145(3) of the Act, \nwithout appreciating the fact that the trading results shown by the assessee \nwere found open to verification and were unreliable. \n\n2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in \ndeleting the addition of Rs.7,49,062/- on account of unsold investment in \nconstruction of building

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.

disallowed. In response, the assessee submitted that trading in derivatives could not be treated as being on investment account. Trading in derivatives was distinct from investment in shares. Derivatives did not carry any dividend but had to be periodically settled. Therefore, they could not form part of opening or closing stock, since dates were specified for squaring

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

section 145(3) of the Act itself is based on the said presumption that the appellant is allowed 12.5% centage uniformly for all projects. On the contrary the centage allowed varies from project to project and no inquiries have been conducted even on test check basis. The addition is therefore made on presumption which is not in accordance with

M/S. RUPANI FOOTCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR NAGAR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Rupani Footcare V. The Income Tax Officer Private Limited Ward 2(3)(1) 122/334, Shastri Nagar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaecr1354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

disallowing the contribution received from employees towards ESI Page 2 of 18 and PF amounting to Rs.1,75,398/- with complete disregards to the Decision of Jurisdictional Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sagan Foundry (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (97 CCH 0160 and 145 DTR 0265) as the payments have been made before due date specified

BHAGWANTI RUBBER AND ALLIED PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowing the contribution received from employees towards ESI and PF amounting to Rs.3,37,472/- with complete disregards to the Decision of Jurisdictional Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sagan Foundry (P) Ltd. Vs CIT (97 CCH I.T.A. No.31/Lkw/2022 Assessment year:2019-20 2 0160 and 145 DTR 0265) as the payments have been made before

VIKASH AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowing the contribution received from employees towards EPF and Any other Welfare Fund amounting to Rs.70,428/- with complete disregards to the Decision of Jurisdictional Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sagan Foundry (P) Ltd. Vs I.T.A. No.126/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2019-20 2 CIT ( 97 CCH 0160 and 145 DTK 0265) as the payments have been made

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA UP

section 145(3) of the Act,\nwithout appreciating that the trading results shown by the assessee were\nfound open to verification and were unreliable.\n2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition of Rs.7,49,062/- on account of unexplain ed investment in\nconstruction of building of 192/2

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA UP

section 145(3) of the Act,\nwithout appreciating the fact that the trading results shown by the assessee\nwere not found open to verification and were unreliable.\n2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition of Rs.7,49,062/- on account of unexempted investment in\nconstruction of building

M/S ALLIANCE BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Alliance Builders & Asst.Commissioner Of V. Contractors Ltd Income Tax, Central Circle-2 C/O 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Allen Ganj, Kanpur. Pan:Aaeca8217A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 11 2024 O R D E R

145 ****** (ii) the period commencing from the day on which the Assessing Officer directs the assessee to his accounts audited under sub-section (2A) of section 142 and ending on the day on which the assessee is required to furnish a report of such audit under that sub-section: or (iii) ****** Shall be excluded: The proviso to Explanation

D.C.I.T., RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. SHRI MANOJ GUPTA, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the department and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Manoj Gupta Acit, Range-3 V. B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, 27/2, P.K. Complex, Raja Lucknow-226024. Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Range-3 V. Manoj Gupta 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, Marg, P. K. Complex, Lucknow- Lucknow-226024. 226001. Pan: Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: Both These Appeals Arise Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-1, Lucknow [Hereinafter Referred As To “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred As To “The Act”] Dated 18.09.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. While Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Ita. No.444/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Department. As The Issues Involved In Both These Appeals Are Similar & Arise Out Of The Same Orders, The Appeals Are Taken Up For Disposal Together. The Grounds Of Appeal In Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Are As Under: -

disallowed the credit balance as on 31.03.2015. Thus, the stand of the AO was contradictory. He pointed out that it had been held by the Hon'ble Courts in a number of judgments, that no addition could be made under section 68 of the Act, in respect of credit balances at the end of the financial year, if, the purchases

SHRI MANOJ GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the department and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Manoj Gupta Acit, Range-3 V. B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, 27/2, P.K. Complex, Raja Lucknow-226024. Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Range-3 V. Manoj Gupta 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, Marg, P. K. Complex, Lucknow- Lucknow-226024. 226001. Pan: Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: Both These Appeals Arise Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-1, Lucknow [Hereinafter Referred As To “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred As To “The Act”] Dated 18.09.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. While Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Ita. No.444/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Department. As The Issues Involved In Both These Appeals Are Similar & Arise Out Of The Same Orders, The Appeals Are Taken Up For Disposal Together. The Grounds Of Appeal In Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Are As Under: -

disallowed the credit balance as on 31.03.2015. Thus, the stand of the AO was contradictory. He pointed out that it had been held by the Hon'ble Courts in a number of judgments, that no addition could be made under section 68 of the Act, in respect of credit balances at the end of the financial year, if, the purchases

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

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

section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, commission of export sales is not an allowable expenditure on payment basis as the assessee is regularly following Mercantile system of accounting. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.12,20,50,000/- on account

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR vs. M/S.ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are also dismissed being infructuous

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

section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, commission of export sales is not an allowable expenditure on payment basis as the assessee is regularly following Mercantile system of accounting. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Kanpur has erred in law and on facts by deleting the addition of Rs.12,20,50,000/- on account