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

In the result, appeals vide I

7) of the said section as the claim was not made while filing the return of income.\n\n1.1\nThe Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by exceeding the powers conferred under section 251 of the IT Act, 1961 by directing the Assessing Officer to verify the claim made by the assessee u/s 80IA which amounts

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

7) of the Act.\n10. BECAUSE in any case the issue with regard to the applicability of charging\nprovisions (as distinct from the applicability of Interest Tax Act, 1974 itself) has\nbeen decided on a wholly wrong premise and the sums aggregating Rs.\n11,75,75,706/- can not be said to be representing \"chargeable interest\" under

M/S PRAMOD TELECOM PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, in ITA. No

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

disallowance under section 40A(7)’. The ld. AO concluded the assessment with the finding that, ‘no addition on the issue

M/S PRAMOD TELECOM PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, in ITA. No

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

disallowance under section 40A(7)’. The ld. AO concluded the assessment with the finding that, ‘no addition on the issue

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

7) of the Act. 10. BECAUSE in any case the issue with regard to the applicability of charging provisions (as distinct from the applicability of Interest Tax Act, 1974 itself) has been decided on a wholly wrong premise and the sums aggregating Rs. 11,75,75,706/- can not be said to be representing "chargeable interest" under

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

7) contained the objects of the authority, while section (10) provided for submission of the plan to the state government for approval. Section (16) of the Act laid down that once the plan was approved, the lands and buildings would be used only according to the plan. Section 20 concerned the funds of the authority and stated that they could

ARIF INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. CIT(A), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.638/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Arif Industries Pvt Ltd V. Commissioner Of Income 2Nd Floor Metro City Centre, Tax Appeals/National Metro City, Paper Mill Faceless Appeal Centre Compound, Nishat Ganj, Delhi. Lucknow-226006. Pan:Aacca2048M अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rajeev Joshi, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 28 10 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

7 the AO has rightly disallowed deduction u/s 80-IB. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 6. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sanjay Kukreja vs ACIT in ITA. No.652/Del/2023 for A.Y. 2019-20 vide order dated 30.01.2024, the Tribunal has elaborately discussed the identical issue

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 14A, which disallowance is contrary to facts, bad in law the disallowance made by AO and upheld be deleted. 7

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 made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the Act amounting to Rs.12,70,62,755/-. The relevant portion of the assessment order is reproduced below: I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 6 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 7 (C.2.1) Vide impugned appellate order dated 06/05/2020, the learned CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid addition of Rs.12

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 made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the Act amounting to Rs.12,70,62,755/-. The relevant portion of the assessment order is reproduced below: I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 6 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 7 (C.2.1) Vide impugned appellate order dated 06/05/2020, the learned CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid addition of Rs.12

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 made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the Act amounting to Rs.12,70,62,755/-. The relevant portion of the assessment order is reproduced below: I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 6 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 7 (C.2.1) Vide impugned appellate order dated 06/05/2020, the learned CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid addition of Rs.12

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 made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the Act amounting to Rs.12,70,62,755/-. The relevant portion of the assessment order is reproduced below: I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 6 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 7 (C.2.1) Vide impugned appellate order dated 06/05/2020, the learned CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid addition of Rs.12

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 made by the Assessing Officer u/s 14A of the Act amounting to Rs.12,70,62,755/-. The relevant portion of the assessment order is reproduced below: I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 6 I.T.A. No.227/Lkw/2020, 229/Lkw/20, 587/Lkw/19, 485/Lkw/19, 588/Lkw/19 7 (C.2.1) Vide impugned appellate order dated 06/05/2020, the learned CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid addition of Rs.12

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

7) contained the objects of the \nauthority, while section (10) provided for submission of the plan to the state government for \napproval. Section (16) of the Act laid down that once the plan was approved, the lands and \nbuildings would be used only according to the plan. Section 20 concerned the funds of the \nauthority and stated that they could

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

In the result all six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

7) contained the objects of the \nauthority, while section (10) provided for submission of the plan to the state government for \napproval. Section (16) of the Act laid down that once the plan was approved, the lands and \nbuildings would be used only according to the plan. Section 20 concerned the funds of the \nauthority and stated that they could

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

7) contained the objects of the \nauthority, while section (10) provided for submission of the plan to the state government for \napproval. Section (16) of the Act laid down that once the plan was approved, the lands and \nbuildings would be used only according to the plan. Section 20 concerned the funds of the \nauthority and stated that they could

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 IT Act 1961, without appreciating that there was 'reasonable cause' for the said failure as per the provisions of Section 273B of the Act 1961. 6. That the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the Learned CIT(Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon'ble Member, ITAT. 7

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

disallowance of LTC/LTA under section 10(5) of IT Act 1961, without appreciating that there was 'reasonable cause' for the said failure as per the provisions of Section 273B of the Act 1961.\n5. That the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the Learned CIT (Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon'ble Member, IITAT.\n6. That