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

section 145(3) of the Act,\nwithout appreciating that the trading results shown by the assessee were\nfound 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 unexplainned investment in\nconstruction of building of 19/2

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

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

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

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

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

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

SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 145(3) of the Act. The\nfinding off acts recorded by the IT AT has not been shown to be perverse,\nand hence cannot be interfered with by this Court. "\nIn view of the above, the addition made be deleted.\nGround no. 7 and 8 relate to addition of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of\nfreight expenses and valuation

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of the Rules. Reliance was placed on the decision in the case of PCIT vs Amadeus India (P.) Ltd (2022) 145 taxmann.com 311 and PCIT vs IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (2017) 84 taxmann.com 186 (Delhi). With regard to ground no. 3, it was submitted that the said deduction of Rs.16

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

145(3) and made assessment u/s 144 of the Act, there\nmay not be in scope for such technical disallowances. Hence, addition of Rs.\n9,22,200/- may not be sustained.\nIssue No. 12 – AY 2021-22\nAddition due to violate the provision of section

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

Section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of the Rules. Reliance was placed on the decision\nin the case of PCIT vs Amadeus India (P.) Ltd (2022) 145 taxmann.com 311 and\nPCIT vs IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (2017) 84 taxmann.com 186\n(Delhi). With regard to ground no. 3, it was submitted that the said deduction of\nRs.16

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D of the Rules. Reliance was placed on the decision\nin the case of PCIT vs Amadeus India (P.) Ltd (2022) 145 taxmann.com 311 and\nPCIT vs IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd (2017) 84 taxmann.com 186\n(Delhi). With regard to ground no. 3, it was submitted that the said deduction of\nRs.16