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

In the result, appeals vide I

section 14A r.w.r 8D do not draw any relation to such expenditures in relation to exempt.\n\n2.\nThe Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts as the assessee invested a substantial amount of Rs.187 Cr. in group companies/sister concerns which entail disallowances to be computed as per the provision of 14A of the I.T. Act read

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

55 taxmann.com 262 (Allahabad) 7. Copy of Hon'ble Delhi High Court order in the case of CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. in I.T.A. No.486/2014 and I.T.A. No.299/2014 (C.2) In Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12 vide I.T.A. No.229/Lkw/2020, the only issue in dispute is regarding the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer

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

55 taxmann.com 262 (Allahabad) 7. Copy of Hon'ble Delhi High Court order in the case of CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. in I.T.A. No.486/2014 and I.T.A. No.299/2014 (C.2) In Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12 vide I.T.A. No.229/Lkw/2020, the only issue in dispute is regarding the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer

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

55 taxmann.com 262 (Allahabad) 7. Copy of Hon'ble Delhi High Court order in the case of CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. in I.T.A. No.486/2014 and I.T.A. No.299/2014 (C.2) In Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12 vide I.T.A. No.229/Lkw/2020, the only issue in dispute is regarding the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer

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

55 taxmann.com 262 (Allahabad) 7. Copy of Hon'ble Delhi High Court order in the case of CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. in I.T.A. No.486/2014 and I.T.A. No.299/2014 (C.2) In Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12 vide I.T.A. No.229/Lkw/2020, the only issue in dispute is regarding the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer

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

55 taxmann.com 262 (Allahabad) 7. Copy of Hon'ble Delhi High Court order in the case of CIT vs. Holcim India P. Ltd. in I.T.A. No.486/2014 and I.T.A. No.299/2014 (C.2) In Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12 vide I.T.A. No.229/Lkw/2020, the only issue in dispute is regarding the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer

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 10(38), dividend from mutual fund under section 10(34) and exempt interest under section 10(15) and 10(11), amounting in total to Rs.1,55

M/S. RUPANI FOOTCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR NAGAR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Rupani Footcare V. The Income Tax Officer Private Limited Ward 2(3)(1) 122/334, Shastri Nagar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaecr1354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

Section 36(1)(va) of Act 1961. Assessing Officer also added Rs.1,93,55,580/ being the amount of short fall towards employers contributory provident fund and disallowed

BHAGWANTI RUBBER AND ALLIED PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 36(1)(va) of Act 1961. Assessing Officer also added Rs. 1,93,55,580/ being the amount of short fall towards employers contributory provident fund and disallowed

JAGMINI MICRO KNIT PVT. LTD,KANPUR vs. DCIT 2(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 Jagmani Micro Knit Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit 2, Sarvodaya Nagar Circle 2(1)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaach3405B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Pradeep Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 04 2022 O R D E R

Section 36(1)(va) of Act 1961. Assessing Officer also added Rs.1,93,55,580/ being the amount of short fall towards employers contributory provident fund and disallowed

MR. SHITIJ DHAWAN ,KANPUR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,, SPECIAL RANGE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Shitij Dhawan V. The Assessing Officer 122/235, Fazalganj Special Range Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Acqpd3380G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 04 2022 O R D E R

Section 36(1)(va) of Act 1961. Assessing Officer also added Rs.1,93,55,580/ being the amount of short fall towards employers contributory provident fund and disallowed

RYDERS EQUESTRIAN PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALURU, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 Ryders Equestrain Products V. The Dy. Cit Pvt. Ltd. Circle 2(1)(I) 50-A, 150, Feet Road Jajmau Lucknow Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaecr3352B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15 06 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 06 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 29.9.2021, For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

55,600/-. While processing the return of income at CPC, Bangalore, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of payment of Rs.88,323/- under 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

disallowed and why the net profit shown in its profit not be brought to tax. In response, the assessee submitted that its activities were of charitable nature and the first proviso to section 2(15), was not applicable in its case because its aims were the coordinated and planned development of the historical cities of Ayodhya and Faizabad. It further

ADITYA FLEXIPACK LLP,KANPUR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SPECIAL RANGE, KANPUR, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 36(1)(va) of Act 1961. Assessing Officer also added Rs.1,93,55,580/ being the amount of short fall towards employers contributory provident fund and disallowed

ADITYA FLEXIPACK LLP,KANPUR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 36(1)(va) of Act 1961. Assessing Officer also added Rs.1,93,55,580/ being the amount of short fall towards employers contributory provident fund and disallowed

M/S AVADH HOSPITAL AND HEART CENTRE,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-6, LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW- NEW

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 36(1)(va) of Act 1961. Assessing Officer also added Rs.1,93,55,580/ being the amount of short fall towards employers contributory provident fund and disallowed

M/S. AVADH HOSPITAL AND HEART CENTRE,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-6, LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 36(1)(va) of Act 1961. Assessing Officer also added Rs.1,93,55,580/ being the amount of short fall towards employers contributory provident fund and disallowed

MUHAMMED AFTAB ALAM,UTTAR PRADESH vs. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 Muhammed Aftab Alam V. Dcit-6, 8/4, Rak Marg, Sf Colony Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Acqpa5602E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Hemant Jain, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 18.11.2021, For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Grossly Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Intimation U/S 154 Sent By Cpc Where By It Processed The Return Of Income Of Appellant For Ay 2019-20 At Rs.26,09,757/-.

Section 36(1)(va) of Act 1961. Assessing Officer also added Rs.1,93,55,580/ being the amount of short fall towards employers contributory provident fund and disallowed