PANKAJ AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. THE AO SPECIAL RANGE,, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Pankaj Agarwal, 7/151, Ratan Vs. The Assessing Officer, Majestic, Opp. Sony World, Special Range, Kanpur- Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur-208002 208001 Pan: Abnpa4816E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 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 Dated 9.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao, Special Range, Kanpur, Passed Under Section 143(3) On 26.09.2019. 2. It Is Seen From The Record That The Appeal Is Delayed By 2 Days. However, Since The Date Of Filing Is Preceded By Saturday & Sunday, Wherein The Offices Of The Itat Were Closed, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Treating The Loss Of Rs.42,17,895/- Being Loss On Account Of Trading In Derivatives As A Capital Loss As Against Business Loss Claimed By The Assessee, Which Finding Of The Ao Being Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Addition Made Be Deleted.

house property, capital gains and also income from trading in derivatives. He filed a return of income on 17.10.2017 showing total income of Rs. 3,74,49,060/-. The assessee had debited an amount of Rs. 42,17,895/- from the P&L 2 A.Y. 2017-18 Pankaj Agarwal account under the head, “derivative loss”. The ld. AO treated

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.

property and thereby a capital asset. There was transfer of capital asset when the transaction was squared by an opposite corresponding transaction and similarly when squaring up was on expiry of the contract, it should be treated as extinguishment of rights in capital asset as per section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. She pointed out that

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

loss under house property by the assessee against which deduction wrongly Rs.92,447/- disallowed for Rs.92,447/- . 3. BECAUSE the Ld. Assessing Officer did not consider the fact that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-has been elaimed under 3 chapter VI-A by the assessee against which deduction wrongly disallowed for Rs. 1,50,000/-. 4. BECAUSE

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

Housing Projects Ltd. ITA No.179/2011 HC of\nDelhi - Dt. of order 1.3.2012 343 ITR 329(Delhi)\nIn the present case, the findings recorded not gone into and has not given\nany by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has reason for observing that\nthe order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous. The finding\nrecorded

M/S. NARAIN PROPERTIES LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ACIT-VI, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Properties Ltd. 9. Synthetic Marble and Resin Ltd. 10. Vind nyawasani Glassware Ltd. It is appreciated that some of the best brains are behind creation of losses by internal sale and purchase of shares in one case or the other which is beyond reasoning from the view point of commercial expediency. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark decision

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

property was converted into freehold through registered deed on 24/10/2017. During the assessment proceeding of AY 2014-15, AO has referred the valuation of said property u/s 50C/142A in response to which Valuation Officer, Allahabad has estimated the FMV of lease property as on 04/10/2013 at Rs. 43,46,000/- against actual consideration of Rs. 31,45,000/- vide valuation

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

property was converted into freehold through registered deed on 24/10/2017. During the assessment proceeding of AY 2014-15, AO has referred the valuation of said property u/s 50C/142A in response to which Valuation Officer, Allahabad has estimated the FMV of lease property as on 04/10/2013 at Rs. 43,46,000/- against actual consideration of Rs. 31,45,000/- vide valuation

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

property was converted into freehold through registered deed on 24/10/2017. During the assessment proceeding of AY 2014-15, AO has referred the valuation of said property u/s 50C/142A in response to which Valuation Officer, Allahabad has estimated the FMV of lease property as on 04/10/2013 at Rs. 43,46,000/- against actual consideration of Rs. 31,45,000/- vide valuation

SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH ,HARDOI vs. ITO-3(2),HARDOI-1, HARDOI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrait(Ss) A. Nos. 795 To 798/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shailendra Kumar Singh Ito-3(2) V. Subhan Khera Sandila, Hardoi- Hardoi-1 241305. Uttar Pradesh-241305. Pan:Cvqps4275L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By: Shri Naeem Khan, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

loss of Rs. 1,07,528 has been claimed under the category of ‘Income from House Property’. In support of this assertion, an Interest Certificate has been included. ITA Nos. 795 to 798/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 9 d) Disallowance of Rs 30,614/was made on account of disallowance of deduction under chapter VI-A Actual Facts: The claim referenced above

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

house property at Rs.57,41,669/- after claiming deductions under section 24 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) and had also shown loss of Rs.4,68,861/- from Business/Profession. The Computation of Income filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings also revealed that the assessee had claimed deduction under section

PRECIOUS BJUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, , BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.66/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Precious Buildtech Pvt Ltd V. Pcit Harmony Apartment, Adiacent Income Tax Department, To Bedi International School, Bareilly-243001. Dental College Road, Pilibhit Bypass Road, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aagcp1255R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Mazhar Akram, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 09 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

Loss account, copy of bank accounts and other documents as directed by the Assessing Authority. It was noted by the Assessing Authority that although, the case was selected for complete scrutiny but it was selected to examine mainly the issues i.e. (i) Real estate business with high closing stock and (ii) Higher turnover reported in Service Tax Return as compared

SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

House Property and other source income. The business activities\ncarried out by the assessee remained identical as to those in several\npreceding year and were operated and controlled from the following\nplaces;\n(a) 74/02, Collectorganj. (Office)\n(b) J-9, Site-3, Panki Industrial Area, Kanpur (Godown)\nFollowing grounds have been raised:-\n1. That the assessment famed u/s.143

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR., KANPUR vs. M/S. SUSHRUT INSTITUTE OF PLASTIC SURGERY PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic Central Circle 2 Surgery Private Limited Kanpur 29, Shahmeena Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.15/Lkw/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No.30/Lkw/2023] Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic V. The Acit Surgery Private Limited Central Circle 2 29, Shahmeena Road Kanpur Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Cross - Objector) (Respondent)

loss of Rs.25,34,904/- shown in the immediately preceding year. Further, reference under section 142A of the Act was also made to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) to estimate the cost of construction of property of the assessee. The DVO, vide his report dated 04.06.2021, estimated the cost of investment made in the ITA No.30/LKW/2023 & C.O. No.15/LKW/2023 Page

ALLIANCE NIRMAAN LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Projects Ltd., I.T.A.\nNo.179/2011-HC of Delhi -date of order 01/03/2012 343 ITR\n329 (Del)\n7.\nCIT vs. Vikas Polymers [2010] 194 Taxman 57 (Delhi High\nCourt)\n8.\nHaryana Coach Body Builders [2006] 10 SOT 736 (Delhi)\n9.\nCIT vs. Mohd. Ishaq Mohd. Gulam 276 ITR 13 (MP)\n10.\nCIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 152 Taxman

DOLLY JINDAL,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-3(5), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Dolly Jindal V. The Income Tax Officer 3(5) 107, Beverly Park Apartment Lucknow New Hyderabad Lucknow Tan/Pan:Afmpj5089D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 04 2025 O R D E R

house for a consideration of Rs.50,00,000/- during the year under consideration, but no return of income had been filed by the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, in response to notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’), the assessee had furnished computation of income, copy of bank statement, capital account

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

loss on sale of Fixed Assets Rs. 8,83,439/-along with provision for incentive allowance Rs. 21,40,000/- under the head Employee Benefit Expenses' and yet taking an adverse view of the matter which amounts to arbitrary exercise of power.3 5. That the Ld. PCIT was wrong in referring the ITAT order dated

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

loss. (2) The first proviso to section takes out an activity from the ambit of charity object if the same is in the nature of trade, commerce or business. Section 2(15) reads as under: “2. (15) “charitable purpose” includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, Raebareli Development Authority, do preservation of environment (including watersheds, forests and wildlife

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

loss. (2) The first proviso to section takes out an activity from the ambit of charity object if the same is in the nature of trade, commerce or business. Section 2(15) reads as under: “2. (15) “charitable purpose” includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, Raebareli Development Authority, do preservation of environment (including watersheds, forests and wildlife

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

loss. (2) The first proviso to section takes out an activity from the ambit of charity object if the same is in the nature of trade, commerce or business. Section 2(15) reads as under: “2. (15) “charitable purpose” includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, Raebareli Development Authority, do preservation of environment (including watersheds, forests and wildlife