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

disallowed.\nIn view of the above discussion and judicial precedents clearly establish\nthat for income to qualify for deductions under Section 801A, it must be\ndirectly derived from the eligible business activity. Interest earned on surplus\nfunds or FDRs does not meet this criterion. The interest income is incidental\nand not a direct result of the core business operations

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

disallowance has been made arbitrarily by application of Rule\n8D(2)(ii) and 8D(2)(iii).\n3. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that as per section 144(2) of the Act,\nAssessing Officer is duty bound to record his/her dissatisfaction on correctness\nof claim of assessee before invoking the provision of section 144. As it is\nevident

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

In the result, appeals vide I

disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was made\nsolely on the basis of investment by Assessee Company in SPVs without\nverifying objects of investment and understanding of relevant provision of law.\nIt is also submitted that section 14A carries heading 'Expenditure\nincurred in relation to income not includible in total income'\n\nAs per Section

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD.,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. ACIT, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Acit Sitapur/Cpc, V. Limited Income Tax Deptt., C/O Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Bengaluru-560500. Lakhimpur Kheri, U.P.-241001. Pan:Aawfs0887P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26 11 2024

Section 143(1)(a) of I. T. Act, the Ld. A. O. CPC lacked jurisdiction to make disallowance of claim for deduction u/s 80P in the Order u/s 143(1) dated 16.07.2020. Page 2 of 9 (4

VIDYUT TRANSMISSION KARMACHARI VETAN BHOGI CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. CPC BANGALORE/ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance has been made merely because the return was filed beyond the due date specified u/s 139(1) accordingly filed u/s 139(4). Copy of acknowledgement for filing of ITR is at page 10 of the Paper book. It is prayed that the provisions of section

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(FORMERLY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),AYODHYA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

section 2(15) of the Income- tax Act. 4. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in disallowing

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.

disallowing the set off against commodity transactions. 4. Furthermore, the ld. AO observed that the assessee had reported huge exempt income in the form of exempt long term capital gain under section

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 irrespective of the fact whether such income has been earned during the financial year or not.” I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 4 I.T.A. No.588/Lkw/2019 “1. Learned CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5,79,43,101/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section

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 irrespective of the fact whether such income has been earned during the financial year or not.” I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 4 I.T.A. No.588/Lkw/2019 “1. Learned CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5,79,43,101/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section

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 irrespective of the fact whether such income has been earned during the financial year or not.” I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 4 I.T.A. No.588/Lkw/2019 “1. Learned CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5,79,43,101/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section

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 irrespective of the fact whether such income has been earned during the financial year or not.” I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 4 I.T.A. No.588/Lkw/2019 “1. Learned CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5,79,43,101/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section

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 irrespective of the fact whether such income has been earned during the financial year or not.” I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 4 I.T.A. No.588/Lkw/2019 “1. Learned CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.5,79,43,101/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section

DINESH CHAND JAIN,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Dinesh Chand Jain, Vs. Dy. Cit, 7/189, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur- Central Circle-1, Kanpur 280002, U.P. Pan: Adbpj2732Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Add Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.04.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1.1 Because The Id. "Cit(A)" Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Withdrawing The Refund Of Interest Amounting To Rs. 8,20,163/-, Paid To The Assessee U/S 244A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On Excess Amount Of Self-Assessment Tax Paid U/S 140A Of The Act. 1.2 Because The View Taken By Id. "Cit(A)" While Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer Is Based On Misinterpretation Of The Provisions Of Clause (B) Of Sub-Section (1) Of Section 244A Of The Act, As Applicable At The Relevant Point Of Time. 2. Because, In Any Case & Without Prejudice To The Grounds Hereinfore, While Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Withdrawing The Interest Paid To The Assessee U/S 244A Of The Act, The Ld. "Cit(A)" Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Of Payment Of Interest On Excess Amount Paid U/S 140A Was Debatable In Nature & It Could Not Have Been Decided By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 154 Of The Act As The Same Did Not Constitute A Mistake Apparent From The Record.

disallow interest under section 244A of the Act on the refund of self-assessment tax wherein the issue was a debatable one and that the ld. AO could not have invoked provisions under section 154 because only mistakes apparent from the record could be rectified under that section. 4

BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, ADMINISTRETIVE OFFICE,KANPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance of LTC/LTA under section 10(5) of the Act, without appreciating that no tax was deductible on the provisions created by the Appellant. 4

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 2(15) of the Act as amended w.e.f. 01.04.2016 made an addition of business profit at Rs.3,32,79,731/-. Further, the Assessing Authority disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.43,28,224/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the income of Rs.3,76,07,955/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 2(15) of the Act as amended w.e.f. 01.04.2016 made an addition of business profit at Rs.3,32,79,731/-. Further, the Assessing Authority disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.43,28,224/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the income of Rs.3,76,07,955/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 2(15) of the Act as amended w.e.f. 01.04.2016 made an addition of business profit at Rs.3,32,79,731/-. Further, the Assessing Authority disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.43,28,224/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the income of Rs.3,76,07,955/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-APPEAL, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 2(15) of the Act as amended w.e.f. 01.04.2016 made an addition of business profit at Rs.3,32,79,731/-. Further, the Assessing Authority disallowed the depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs.43,28,224/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer computed the income of Rs.3,76,07,955/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before

SHRAMIK VIKAS SAHKARI SHRRAM SAMVIDA SAMITI LTD.,KANPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 1(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2019-20 Shramik Vikas Sahkari V. The Assessing Officer Shrram Samvida Samiti Ltd, Circle 1(1)(1) 135-K-2, Nankari, Iit Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R

4) of the Act. While drawing the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act, the CPC, Bengaluru has denied the claim of deduction under Section 80P of the Act owing to ROI filed after due date. The assessee sought rectification thereof under Section 154 of the Act which was reported. The CIT(A) in the first appeal also refused