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

14A", "143(3)", "143(2)", "148", "139(1)", "139(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

U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-VI, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act can be made in the absence of any exempt income for the assessment years relevant to the appeal as the assessee’s case is not hit by aforesaid Explanation to section 14A of the Act. Therefore, Revenue’s appeal in I.T.A. No.229/Lkw/2020 for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed. (E) As regards Revenue

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act can be made in the absence of any exempt income for the assessment years relevant to the appeal as the assessee’s case is not hit by aforesaid Explanation to section 14A of the Act. Therefore, Revenue’s appeal in I.T.A. No.229/Lkw/2020 for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed. (E) As regards Revenue

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act can be made in the absence of any exempt income for the assessment years relevant to the appeal as the assessee’s case is not hit by aforesaid Explanation to section 14A of the Act. Therefore, Revenue’s appeal in I.T.A. No.229/Lkw/2020 for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed. (E) As regards Revenue

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act can be made in the absence of any exempt income for the assessment years relevant to the appeal as the assessee’s case is not hit by aforesaid Explanation to section 14A of the Act. Therefore, Revenue’s appeal in I.T.A. No.229/Lkw/2020 for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed. (E) As regards Revenue

DCIT, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act can be made in the absence of any exempt income for the assessment years relevant to the appeal as the assessee’s case is not hit by aforesaid Explanation to section 14A of the Act. Therefore, Revenue’s appeal in I.T.A. No.229/Lkw/2020 for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed. (E) As regards Revenue

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

In the result, appeals vide I

section 14A\nAssessing Officer on not being satisfied with working of disallowance by assessee,\ninvoked rule 8D(2)(iii) and recomputed

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

sections": [ "147", "148", "143(3)", "2(22)(e)", "41(1)", "14A", "143(1)", "143(2)", "142(1)", "251(2)", "150(1)", "153(3)(ii)" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowances

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

disallowance in accordance with provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(i) or Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules

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.

2) of section 14A which laid down that the ld. AO shall determine the disallowance and sub section (3) laid

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

disallowance in\naccordance with provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(i) or Rule 8D(2)(ii)\nof the Rules

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

disallowance in\naccordance with provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(i) or Rule 8D(2)(ii)\nof the Rules

ACIT CIRCLE 3, LUCKNOW vs. RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 112 To 114/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2015-16 To 2017-18 Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Vs. Dcit Bank Ltd P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. 226001. Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan:Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) A.Y.2016-17 Acit Circle-3 Vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh Ltd Kar Bhawan, Lucknow Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan: Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Addl. Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Four Appeals Have Been Have Been Filed For The Assessment Years 2015 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18 By The Assessee & Revenue Ssessee & Revenue Against The Respective Orders Of The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024. While The Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, The Revenue 18, The Revenue

disallowance in accordance with provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(i) or Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules

LEAYAN GLOBAL PVT.LTD,KANPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(3)(1),, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance was not justified.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "14A", "143(2)", "8D" ], "issues": "Whether disallowance under Section 14A is justified when

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

disallowance of Rs.1,71,63,491/- u/s 14A of the I.T. Act read with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The express provisions of section 14A r.w.r 8D do not draw any relation to such expenditures in relation to exempt. 2

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

disallowance of Rs.1,71,63,491/- u/s 14A of the I.T. Act read with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The express provisions of section 14A r.w.r 8D do not draw any relation to such expenditures in relation to exempt. 2

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowance of Rs.1,71,63,491/- u/s 14A of the I.T. Act read with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules, 1962. The express provisions of section 14A r.w.r 8D do not draw any relation to such expenditures in relation to exempt. 2

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

disallowed. In this case, assessing officer has not asked the assessee\nto submit the details of licence issued to him for the trading of liquor.\niii. The AO has also failed to examine the sales of liquor by assessee with\nsupporting documents such as sales bills/vouchers. Hon'ble Rajasthan\nHigh Court in the cases CIT Vs. Ram Singh and Others