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.

94,309/-.She held that there were certain hidden charges in the form of processing fees, surrender charges, brokerage and handling charges which had not been reported by the assessee while earning the income. She, therefore, made reference to the provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and applying the same determined the disallowance as per 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

section 253(3) of IT Act. As per noting of registry, this appeal is time barred by 03 days only. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental

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

section 253(3) of IT Act. As per noting of registry, this appeal is time barred by 03 days only. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental

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

section 253(3) of IT Act. As per noting of registry, this appeal is time barred by 03 days only. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental

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

section 253(3) of IT Act. As per noting of registry, this appeal is time barred by 03 days only. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental

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

section 253(3) of IT Act. As per noting of registry, this appeal is time barred by 03 days only. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the appeal for hearing. The learned Sr. Departmental

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

7) of the said section as the claim was not made while filing the return of income. The 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 to setting

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. 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 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

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

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

disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), of Rs.3,22,274/- for Assessment Year 2018-19 and Rs.1,94,670/- for Assessment Year 2019-20, representing employees’ shares towards contribution to ESI & PF, which the assessee had deposited beyond the due date mentioned in the provisions of the relevant section of the Income Tax Act and that however, the deposits

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

disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), of Rs.3,22,274/- for Assessment Year 2018-19 and Rs.1,94,670/- for Assessment Year 2019-20, representing employees’ shares towards contribution to ESI & PF, which the assessee had deposited beyond the due date mentioned in the provisions of the relevant section of the Income Tax Act and that however, the deposits

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, 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, 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