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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

94 taxmann.com 324 (Gujrat). [Para 9.9 & 9.10 Page 109 & 110] Appeal filed by Revenue ITA 623/LKW/2024 3 Excess disallowances of deduction made u/s 801A(4) of the Act amounting Rs. 31,64,147/- in Rs. 62783806/- already made in original assessment order u/s 143(3) and sustained by CIT(A) Order dt. 19/12/2023 and disputed before Hon'ble ITAT

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.1,55,94

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

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 14A does not use the word ‘income of the year’ but ‘income under the act’ and CBDT circular no. 05/2014 dated 11/02/2014 makes it clear that

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

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 14A does not use the word ‘income of the year’ but ‘income under the act’ and CBDT circular no. 05/2014 dated 11/02/2014 makes it clear that

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

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 14A does not use the word ‘income of the year’ but ‘income under the act’ and CBDT circular no. 05/2014 dated 11/02/2014 makes it clear that

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

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 14A does not use the word ‘income of the year’ but ‘income under the act’ and CBDT circular no. 05/2014 dated 11/02/2014 makes it clear that

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

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 14A does not use the word ‘income of the year’ but ‘income under the act’ and CBDT circular no. 05/2014 dated 11/02/2014 makes it clear that

M/S PREMIER CAR SALES LTD,HAZRATGANJ vs. THE ACIT -5, LUCKNOW NEW

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

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

94,630/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction for payment of Rs.8,19,475/- under section 36(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act on account of employees contribution of EPF & ESIC. 3. Aggrieved by the orders of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A), NFAC, vide their impugned

M/S PREMIER CAR SALES LTD,HAZRATGANG vs. THE ACIT -5, LUCKNOW NEW

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

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

94,630/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction for payment of Rs.8,19,475/- under section 36(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act on account of employees contribution of EPF & ESIC. 3. Aggrieved by the orders of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A), NFAC, vide their impugned

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

94,32,820/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction for payment of Rs.32,68,040/- under section 36(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act on account of employees contribution of EPF & ESIC. 3. Aggrieved by the orders of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A), NFAC, vide their

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

94,32,820/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction for payment of Rs.32,68,040/- under section 36(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act on account of employees contribution of EPF & ESIC. 3. Aggrieved by the orders of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A), NFAC, vide their

DEE GEE SAW & METAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, LUCKNOW

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

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

disallowed the PF and ESI, amounting to Rs.1,94,670/-, observing that the same was deposited after the due date but before the due date of filing of the return. The assessee filed rectification application under section 154 of the I.T. Act with the CPC, requesting that since the PF and ESI were deposited before the due date of filing

DEE GEE SAW & METAL WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, LUCKNOW

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

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

disallowed the PF and ESI, amounting to Rs.1,94,670/-, observing that the same was deposited after the due date but before the due date of filing of the return. The assessee filed rectification application under section 154 of the I.T. Act with the CPC, requesting that since the PF and ESI were deposited before the due date of filing

K.M.SUGAR MILLS LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE2(2)(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17

section 37 2 3,61,967 Disallowance of Foreign Travel Expenses 3 13,06,595 Page 2 of 4 Disallowance out of Miscellaneous expenses 4 11,76,244 Disallowance of Fee and Charges paid on sale of REC 5 1,94

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

disallowing the exemption u/s 11, 12 and 13 read with first Proviso to section 2(15) on the ground that the appellant is hit by the provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

disallowing the exemption u/s 11, 12 and 13 read with first Proviso to section 2(15) on the ground that the appellant is hit by the provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts

LUCKNOW EVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. I.T.O., LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

disallowing the exemption u/s 11, 12 and 13 read with first Proviso to section 2(15) on the ground that the appellant is hit by the provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

disallowing the exemption u/s 11, 12 and 13 read with first Proviso to section 2(15) on the ground that the appellant is hit by the provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts