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

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

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

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

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

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

145(3)", "147", "148", "148A", "149", "153A", "153D", "153B", "144A", "40A(3)", "80C", "80G", "54F", "68", "69A", "56(2)(vii)(b)"], "issues": "The primary issue was the validity of assessment orders passed in search cases where the AO allegedly did not properly apply for approval under section 153D of the Act. Other issues involved the disallowance

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

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.

3. The ld. AO rejected the replies so filed by the assessee on the grounds that the definition of short term capital asset was defined as per section 2(42A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and Explanation 2 of the same section defined, ‘securities’ for the purposes of short term capital gain. She further observed that the meaning of securities

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

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

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

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: -

145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Appellant craves leave to add as amend any one or more of the ground of appeal as stated above as and when need of doing so arises with the prior permission of the Hon'ble ITAT.” 3. It is observed that the Revenue’s appeal is delayed by 18 days. However, considering

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: -

145(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Appellant craves leave to add as amend any one or more of the ground of appeal as stated above as and when need of doing so arises with the prior permission of the Hon'ble ITAT.” 3. It is observed that the Revenue’s appeal is delayed by 18 days. However, considering

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

145(3)", "40A(3)", "80G", "54F"], "issues": "The primary issues revolve around the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 and the validity of approvals granted under Section 153D. Additionally, disputes exist regarding the estimation of net profit rates, disallowances