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

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

43,180 31/01/2022 Standard Agro Vet Partly allowed Pvt. Ltd. -Do- 13-14 29/12/2019 1,22,06,030 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 14-15 29/12/2019 72,29,750 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 15-16 29/12/2019 96,13,740 31/12/2022 Partly allowed Kamal Kant Verma 15-16 30/12/2019 68,45,160 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 16-17 30/12/2019 1

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

43,180 31/01/2022 Standard Agro Vet Partly allowed Pvt. Ltd. -Do- 13-14 29/12/2019 1,22,06,030 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 14-15 29/12/2019 72,29,750 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 15-16 29/12/2019 96,13,740 31/12/2022 Partly allowed Kamal Kant Verma 15-16 30/12/2019 68,45,160 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 16-17 30/12/2019 1

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

43,180 31/01/2022 Standard Agro Vet Partly allowed Pvt. Ltd. -Do- 13-14 29/12/2019 1,22,06,030 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 14-15 29/12/2019 72,29,750 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 15-16 29/12/2019 96,13,740 31/12/2022 Partly allowed Kamal Kant Verma 15-16 30/12/2019 68,45,160 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 16-17 30/12/2019 1

JCIT(OSD), CC-1, LKO, LUCKNOW vs. ACP TOLLWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed and the Cross\nObjection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

disallow the claim of\ndepreciation. (AY. 2007-08 to 2009-10)\n1. M/s.Dimension Construction\nPvtLtd., 1148, EWard, Respondent\nSykes Extension, Kolhapur.\nITA Nos.540and541/PUN/2016\nAssessmentYears:2005-06and\n2007-08dt. 05/01/2018\nWe have heard the rival submissions and perused the material\non record. We find that identical issue of depreciation on the\nintangible asset namely, right to collection of toll from

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

1) of the Act in respect of his submission that the intention of the legislature was to give the narrowest possible construction to deduction admissible under this sub-section. It is not necessary for us to deal with this submission in view of the findings recorded above. For the aforementioned reasons, the Appeal is dismissed qua the issue

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

1) of the Act in respect of his submission that the intention of the legislature was to give the narrowest possible construction to deduction admissible under this sub-section. It is not necessary for us to deal with this submission in view of the findings recorded above. For the aforementioned reasons, the Appeal is dismissed qua the issue

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

1) of the Act in respect of his submission that the intention of the legislature was to give the narrowest possible construction to deduction admissible under this sub-section. It is not necessary for us to deal with this submission in view of the findings recorded above. For the aforementioned reasons, the Appeal is dismissed qua the issue

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowed despite the assessee having been engaged in the education activities, duly registered under section 12A of he Act. (ii) That the above exemption has been denied invoking the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, without giving any specific findings in this regard. Page 18 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 4.1 Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowed despite the assessee having been engaged in the education activities, duly registered under section 12A of he Act. (ii) That the above exemption has been denied invoking the provisions of section 13(3) of the Act, without giving any specific findings in this regard. Page 18 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 4.1 Section

SRI SAINATH ASSOCIATES,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT-6, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance of employee's contribution is duly considered. However, the same cannot be accepted in view of the amendments made to section 36 and 43B by the Finance Act, 2021. The Finance Act, 2021 has amended section 36, which reads as under “In section 36 of the Income-tax Act, in sub-section (1), in clause (va), the Explanation shall

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.

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 and 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

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

section 8(2) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 disallowing the exemption A.Ys. 1995-96 & 1996-97 M/s U.P. State Industrial Development Ltd claimed by the assessee under the Interest Tax Act and made the following additions to the chargeable interest of the assessee for the A.Y.1995-96; i. Interest received on deposits Rs. 98,43,985/- ii. Interest received

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is held to be partly allowed

disallowing the exemption\nclaimed by the assessee under the Interest Tax Act and made the following\nadditions to the chargeable interest of the assessee for the A.Y.1995-96;\ni. Interest received on deposits Rs.98,43,985/-\nii. Interest received on loans and others Rs.20,13,599/-\niii. Interest received on UPSEB loan Rs.1,70,17,987/-\niv. Interest received on advances

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 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the ground that the tax at source has not been deducted on material supplied by the contractors. The estimated disallowance @4.845% of amount of Rs. 1,43

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

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