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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed Rs.10,00,000/- to cover up the possible leakages. The\nbooks of account have been tax audited, and it has been held, that when\nthe books of account are tax audited, details are furnished, no\ndisallowance can be made on adhoc basis. Reference in this connection\nmay be made to the following decisions:\nJ.J: Enterprises vs Commissioner Of Income

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 of administrative expenses

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 of administrative expenses

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 of administrative expenses

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

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

UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

145(3) of the\nAct. The AO further submits that under Section 11 of the Act, only that part of the\namount which was actually utilized for the specified purposes under the relevant\ngovernment scheme can be claimed as application of income and therefore, the\nunutilized amount lying with the executing agencies as at the end of the year\ncannot

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT\nAND\nSHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)

145(3) of the\nAct. The AO further submits that under Section 11 of the Act, only that part of the\namount which was actually utilized for the specified purposes under the relevant\ngovernment scheme can be claimed as application of income and therefore, the\nunutilized amount lying with the executing agencies as at the end of the year\ncannot

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

2:58 pm, 26/11/2025] .: (f) Under the provisions of Income Tax Act, it was the auditor under Section 44AB who was required to report whether the amount was 'deductible under Section 40(a)(ia) and not the Special Auditor who was required to report whether the amount was deducted or not under Section 194C of the Act. In this context

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. 9,65,000/- may not be sustained. Reliance is placed on Commissioner of Income-tax v. BanwariLalBanshidhar[1998] 229 ITR 229 (ALL.) Issue No. 13 – AY 2021-22 Disallowances of deduction claimed

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. 9,65,000/- may not be sustained. Reliance is placed on Commissioner of Income-tax v. BanwariLalBanshidhar[1998] 229 ITR 229 (ALL.) Issue No. 13 – AY 2021-22 Disallowances of deduction claimed

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. 9,65,000/- may not be sustained. Reliance is placed on Commissioner of Income-tax v. BanwariLalBanshidhar[1998] 229 ITR 229 (ALL.) Issue No. 13 – AY 2021-22 Disallowances of deduction claimed

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

M/S STANDARD FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT LTD,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance of Rs.2,22,289/- on account of interest on unsecured loan. 6. That the assessment completed by learned Assessing Officer is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful as no addition can be made merely on doubt or presumption without bringing any positive evidences. 7. That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in not providing proper and adequate opportunity to the appellant

SACHIN VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance of Rs.2,22,289/- on account of interest on unsecured loan. 6. That the assessment completed by learned Assessing Officer is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful as no addition can be made merely on doubt or presumption without bringing any positive evidences. 7. That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in not providing proper and adequate opportunity to the appellant

KAMAL KANT VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance of Rs.2,22,289/- on account of interest on unsecured loan. 6. That the assessment completed by learned Assessing Officer is arbitrary, prejudicial and unlawful as no addition can be made merely on doubt or presumption without bringing any positive evidences. 7. That the learned Assessing Officer has erred in not providing proper and adequate opportunity to the appellant

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

GURU KRIPA ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PR. CIT, , BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

2(a) to section 263(1) of\nthe Act that for the purposes of revision u/s 263 of the Act, an order passed\nby the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is\nprejudicial to the interest of the Revenue if in the opinion of the Pr.CIT, the\norder was passed by the Assessing