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 72 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On perusing the documents of the assessee, the ld. AO found that the assessee had a total loss from derivatives of Rs.2,47,02,865/-. The loss to the extent of Rs.60,13,263.98/-, had been set off from the profit of commodity transactions and a net loss of Rs.1

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 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: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

disallowance be deleted. Page 2 of 17 3. Because on proper consideration of the facts and reading of the provisions of section 36(1)(va) as interpreted by the Apex Court, time and again, it would be found that the contribution to EPF & ESIC are allowable whenever paid but before the filing of the income tax return, the order passed

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowed by Assessing Officer. The addition confirmed to the extent of Rs.31,64,146/- is liable to be deleted. 3. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts & law while not considering total income computed by Assessing Officer at Rs.1,84,83,76,293/- subsequently rectified 154/147/143(3) on 15/05/2023 at Rs.1,67,54,56,067/-.” (A.1) The issues

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

disallowed by Assessing Officer. The addition confirmed to the extent of Rs.31,64,146/- is liable to be deleted. 3. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts & law while not considering total income computed by Assessing Officer at Rs.1,84,83,76,293/- subsequently rectified 154/147/143(3) on 15/05/2023 at Rs.1,67,54,56,067/-.” (A.1) The issues

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

disallowed by Assessing Officer. The addition confirmed to the extent of Rs.31,64,146/- is liable to be deleted. 3. Because the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts & law while not considering total income computed by Assessing Officer at Rs.1,84,83,76,293/- subsequently rectified 154/147/143(3) on 15/05/2023 at Rs.1,67,54,56,067/-.” (A.1) The issues

U.P. RAJYA CHINI AVAM GANNA VIKAS NIGAM LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-VI, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year 2012-13 U.P. Rajya Chini Avam Ganna Vikas Dcit, Nigam Ltd., Vipin Khand, Range Vi, Gomti Nagar, Vs Lucknow Lucknow Pan – Aaacu 5951D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) dated 20.3.2015 for AY 2012-13. 2. The issue raised by the assessee in the present appeal relates to addition of Rs.57,72,174/- on account of expenditure disallowed

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BAREILLY vs. M/S L.H SUGAR FACTORY PVT. LTD.,, PILIBHIT

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance by holding as under: “4. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has some investment income from which being dividend, is exempt from Income Tax. Thus Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is applicable to the assessee. Accordingly proportionate interest and one-half percent of average value of investment made

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

disallowance made by\nhim - Held, yes\nWhere Section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains - Chargeable\nas (Business income v. capital gains: share dealing) Assessment year\n2011-12 Assessing Officer made enquiry in respect of sale of shares and\nloss incurred by assessee on sale of such shares was allowed to be set\noff against profit on sale

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,BAHRAICH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, BAHRAICH

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.599, 600 & 601/Lkw/2025 A.Ys. 2013-14, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Cooperative Cane Development Vs. Income Tax Officer-1, 423A, Union Ltd., Bahraich, C/O Vaishnavpuram, Huzoorpur Ayyubi Chambers, Raniganj, Road, Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh Lakhimpur Kheri-262701, U.P. 271801 Pan: Aaaac8503F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.01.2026 O R D E R Per Bench These Three Appeals Have Been Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 25.06.2025 (For The Assessment Year 2013-14) & 26.06.2025 (For The Assessment Year 2018-19) & 4.07.2025 (For The Assessment Year 2020-21), Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Various Orders Passed By The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2018-19 & 2020-21. The Grounds Of Appeal In The Aforesaid Three Appeals Are As Under:- A.Y. 2013-14 “(1) That The Authorities Below Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Allowing Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(Iii) & 80P(2)(I) Of I. T. Act On Interest Received On Investments Held With Banks In Form Of F.D.R.'S & Interest On Saving Bank Account Rs. 72,38,730/-. (2) That The Authorities Below Erred On Facts In Not Considering Investments In Deposits With Banks Has Been Made As Per Statutory Requirements & The Interest So Realized On Such Investments Shall Be Attributable To The Activity Of Providing Credit Facilities & Marketing Agriculture Produce. Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd. A.Ys. 2013-14, 2018-19 & 2020-21

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, he disallowed an amount of Rs. 72,38,726/- and added

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,BAHRAICH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, BAHRAICH

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.599, 600 & 601/Lkw/2025 A.Ys. 2013-14, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Cooperative Cane Development Vs. Income Tax Officer-1, 423A, Union Ltd., Bahraich, C/O Vaishnavpuram, Huzoorpur Ayyubi Chambers, Raniganj, Road, Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh Lakhimpur Kheri-262701, U.P. 271801 Pan: Aaaac8503F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.01.2026 O R D E R Per Bench These Three Appeals Have Been Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 25.06.2025 (For The Assessment Year 2013-14) & 26.06.2025 (For The Assessment Year 2018-19) & 4.07.2025 (For The Assessment Year 2020-21), Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Various Orders Passed By The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2018-19 & 2020-21. The Grounds Of Appeal In The Aforesaid Three Appeals Are As Under:- A.Y. 2013-14 “(1) That The Authorities Below Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Allowing Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(Iii) & 80P(2)(I) Of I. T. Act On Interest Received On Investments Held With Banks In Form Of F.D.R.'S & Interest On Saving Bank Account Rs. 72,38,730/-. (2) That The Authorities Below Erred On Facts In Not Considering Investments In Deposits With Banks Has Been Made As Per Statutory Requirements & The Interest So Realized On Such Investments Shall Be Attributable To The Activity Of Providing Credit Facilities & Marketing Agriculture Produce. Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd. A.Ys. 2013-14, 2018-19 & 2020-21

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, he disallowed an amount of Rs. 72,38,726/- and added

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,BAHRAICH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, BAHRAICH

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.599, 600 & 601/Lkw/2025 A.Ys. 2013-14, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Cooperative Cane Development Vs. Income Tax Officer-1, 423A, Union Ltd., Bahraich, C/O Vaishnavpuram, Huzoorpur Ayyubi Chambers, Raniganj, Road, Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh Lakhimpur Kheri-262701, U.P. 271801 Pan: Aaaac8503F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.01.2026 O R D E R Per Bench These Three Appeals Have Been Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 25.06.2025 (For The Assessment Year 2013-14) & 26.06.2025 (For The Assessment Year 2018-19) & 4.07.2025 (For The Assessment Year 2020-21), Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Various Orders Passed By The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2018-19 & 2020-21. The Grounds Of Appeal In The Aforesaid Three Appeals Are As Under:- A.Y. 2013-14 “(1) That The Authorities Below Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Allowing Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(Iii) & 80P(2)(I) Of I. T. Act On Interest Received On Investments Held With Banks In Form Of F.D.R.'S & Interest On Saving Bank Account Rs. 72,38,730/-. (2) That The Authorities Below Erred On Facts In Not Considering Investments In Deposits With Banks Has Been Made As Per Statutory Requirements & The Interest So Realized On Such Investments Shall Be Attributable To The Activity Of Providing Credit Facilities & Marketing Agriculture Produce. Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd. A.Ys. 2013-14, 2018-19 & 2020-21

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, he disallowed an amount of Rs. 72,38,726/- and added

UP GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

72,71,119/- (iii) Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on estimation basis of Rs.1,65,08,709/- (iv) Disallowance of business expenditure @ 15% of Rs.3,21,25,722/- (v) Disallowance on account of sundry creditors on estimation basis of Rs.3,39,63,767/-. Further, It was submitted that the assessee had not filed any appeal against

M/S MODEL EXIM,KANPUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriam/S. Model Exim Pcit (Central) V. 624-C, Defence Colony, 7/81-B, Tilak Nagar, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010. Kanpur. Pan:Aadfm6163H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Smt Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 29 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 11 2024 O R D E R

disallowance of the commission under section 9(1)(vii) as FTS is not applicable to the facts of the case as per reason given in the reply. In support of his claim he has relied upon the following case laws in his favour: - 1. CIT Vs. Toshoku Ltd (125 ITR 525 SC) 2. CIT Vs. Eon Technology

M/S K.M.GASES PVT.LTD.(NOW K.M.VYAPAR PVT.LTD),KANPUR vs. DY. CIT-VI, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S K.M. Gases Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit-Vi (Now Known As K.M. Vyapar Pvt. Ltd.) Kanpur 11, Moti Bhawan, 52/1, Collectorgant Kanpur (U.P) Tan/Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

72,810/-. The case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued statutory notices to the assessee. In compliance to the notices, assessee’s Counsel attended before the AO and furnished copies of audited Financial Statements, books of account and original bank statements. From the computation of ITA No.199/LKW/2022 Page 2 of 8 income filed

MR.BHUPENDRA KUMAR TIWARI,GONDA vs. ITO-6(1), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Ys. 2021-22 Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tiwari, Vs. Ito, P.S. Bhitaree-1, Wazirganj, Ward 6(1) Distt. Gonda Lucknow Pan Agmpt 0366J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024 O R D E R

72,710/- and disallowed loss claimed under house property Rs.92,447/-, also disallowed deduction under Chapter VI-A Rs.1,50,000/- and also addition of cash deposited at bank Rs.21,00,000/- which was taken from close relatives and friends for purchase of land. 2. BECAUSE the Ld. Assessing Officer did not consider the fact that a sum of Rs.92

NARENDRA SACHIN ENTERPRISES,LUCKNOW vs. ITO NFAC, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

72,88,617/-, which correctly represent transactions post- formation of the firm. However, the AO has adopted the total purchase figure of Rs.2,01,45,903/- (as per Form 26AS) which is an error on facts & and in law. 5. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in disallowing cash payments amounting to Rs.62

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we don't see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act.” Page 22 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowing the exemption claimed and assessing to tax the income of the assessee and the appellate authorities were justified in confirming the same. In such circumstances, we don't see any question of law arising in these appeals to be considered by this Court under Section 260(A) of the Income Tax Act.” Page 22 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM