UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

disallowance under section 40 and they cannot be claimed as deduction under section 28. This reasoning applies with equal force to the analogous provision of sections 43

M/S GULATI EXTRUSIONS PVT. LTD,KANPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Gulati Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit 17-A, Co-Operative Industrial Circle 2(1)(1) Estate Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaacg5008M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1.3.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of Five Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Director Of The Assessee Company Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Stating Therein That The Papers Required For Filing The Appeal Was Sent Through Speed Post On 27.4.2021 Well Within The Limitation Period, However The Same Was Delivered By The Postal Authorities In The Office Of The Tribunal On 5.5.2021. It Was Further Stated That Since The Nominal Delay Of Five Days Was Due To Late Delivery Of The Dak By The Postal Authorities, The Delay May Be Condoned & The Appeal Be Admitted For Hearing. Having Carefully Perused The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That There Was Sufficient Cause For The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. Accordingly, The Delay Of 5 Days Is Condoned & Admit This Appeal For Hearing.

Section 43-B of the Act came to be examined. In that case, the question which arose for determination was, whether sales tax collected by the assessee and paid after the end of the relevant previous year but within the time allowed under the relevant sales tax law should be disallowed

KWALITY RESTAURANT,KANPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 Kwality Restaurant V. The Cit(A) 16/97, The Mall Delhi Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaafk8712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.9.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 115 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Which Is Also Supported By An Affidavit. 3. I Have Gone Through The Application For Condonation Of Delay As Well As The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee & Heard The Contention Of The Ld. D.R. On The Issue Of Condonation Of Delay. The Ld. D.R. Has Objected To The Condonatiion Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Is Shifting The Blame Of Delay On Its Counsel. 4. Having Considered The Reasons Explained By The Assessee In The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That The Assessee Has Explained The Cause Of Delay That Due To An Oversight Of The Counsel Of The Assessee, Necessary Steps For Filing

Section 43-B of the Act came to be examined. In that case, the question which arose for determination was, whether sales tax collected by the assessee and paid after the end of the relevant previous year but within the time allowed under the relevant sales tax law should be disallowed

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.

disallowance as per section 14A r.w.r. 8D(ii) at Rs. 12,35,930/-. Accordingly, the ld. AO also made this addition to the income of the assessee under section 14A. 5. Aggrieved with the said assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal with the ld. CIT(A), Kanpur on 23.02.2015, which was subsequently transferred to the NFAC. During the course

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

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

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). The due date of filing ITR was 31.10.2019 but the ITR was filed on 01.11.2019 after the delay of merely 25 minutes and was uploaded at 009:25:43 hrs on 01.11.2019. Copy of acknowledgement for filing of ITR is at page

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

disallowance has been made merely because the return was filed beyond the due date specified u/s 139(1). The due date of filing ITR was 31.10.2019 but the ITR was filed on 01.11.2019 after the delay of merely 25 minutes and was uploaded at 009:25:43 hrs on 01.11.2019. Copy of acknowledgement for filing of ITR is at page

J.P. MOTOR RPIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2018-19 J.P. Motor Pvt. Ltd. V. The Acit 313/22, Khun Khun Ji Road Range 1 Chowk, Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aabcj6763H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 07 2022 O R D E R

disallowance of Rs.l6,54,319/- towards employees contribution to Provident Fund (PF) and Employees State Insurance dues (ESI), which was paid after the due date but before filling of the income tax return under section 139(1) of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeal) has not appreciated that during the relevant assessment year if the Provident Fund deposit

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

disallowing the entire expenditure incurred by the assessee on purchases of various items like sand, coarse sand, boulders, grits etc. in its business of deposit work and execution of civil contracts aggregating to Rs.1,43,49,20,141.00 under Section

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

section 14A of the Act, amounting to Rs.2,56,56,447/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the aforesaid amount holding that this amount represented interest expenses in relation to making investments, income from which would not be includable in the assessee’s hand. In the impugned appellate order, the learned CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid addition after considering the assessee

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

section 14A of the Act, amounting to Rs.2,56,56,447/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the aforesaid amount holding that this amount represented interest expenses in relation to making investments, income from which would not be includable in the assessee’s hand. In the impugned appellate order, the learned CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid addition after considering the assessee

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 14A of the Act, amounting to Rs.2,56,56,447/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the aforesaid amount holding that this amount represented interest expenses in relation to making investments, income from which would not be includable in the assessee’s hand. In the impugned appellate order, the learned CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid addition after considering the assessee

SHIVA NEETI DEVELOPERS,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2014-15 Shiva Neeti Developers V. The Income Tax Officer 3A/185, Azad Nagar Ward 3(4) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Abqfs8644D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.8.2017 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Kanpur For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. Addition.... Rs.44,68,162/-“ 8. The facts recorded by the Assessing Officer are not in dispute, as the assessee has filed the audit report in Form No.10CCB during the course of assessment proceedings manually and it was not filed electronically. The Assessing Officer Page 7 of 13 has further mentioned

PANKAJ AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. THE AO SPECIAL RANGE,, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Pankaj Agarwal, 7/151, Ratan Vs. The Assessing Officer, Majestic, Opp. Sony World, Special Range, Kanpur- Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur-208002 208001 Pan: Abnpa4816E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 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 Dated 9.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao, Special Range, Kanpur, Passed Under Section 143(3) On 26.09.2019. 2. It Is Seen From The Record That The Appeal Is Delayed By 2 Days. However, Since The Date Of Filing Is Preceded By Saturday & Sunday, Wherein The Offices Of The Itat Were Closed, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Treating The Loss Of Rs.42,17,895/- Being Loss On Account Of Trading In Derivatives As A Capital Loss As Against Business Loss Claimed By The Assessee, Which Finding Of The Ao Being Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Addition Made Be Deleted.

section 43(5) can now be set off against any other income of the year and also carried forward for set off against any other income of the subsequent year. The two case laws relied upon by the Ld AR essentially reaffirm this principle. Thus, we note that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the decision

KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LIMITED ,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year:2009-10

43,198/- Add:- Disallowances u/s 43B Rs. 11,15,21,523/- Addition on account of excise duty in closing stock Rs. 2,01,06,7071- Addition on account of closing stock of sugar Rs.83,00,475/- Addition on account of other liabilities Rs. 1,81,29,678/- Total Additions: Rs. 15,80,58,383/- Net Income Rs.8