← All Phrases

“Section 254(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 254Section 254(3)9 judgments

HAFIZ ABDUL HAKEEM MEMORIAL TRUST,BIJNOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, BAREILLY

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

ITA 892/LKW/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 254(3)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. The appeal has been filed by the assessee beyond time limit (B) prescribed under section 254(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). As per noting of Registry, this appeal is time barred by one day. The assessee

ANIL KUMAR,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. ITO-1(4), SHAHJAHANPUR, SHAHJAHANPUR

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

ITA 880/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144Section 254(3)

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. The appeal has been filed by the assessee beyond time limit (B) prescribed under section 254(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). As per noting of Registry, this appeal is time barred by one day. The assessee

KUMAR TALKIES,BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BAREILLY-NEW, BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH

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

ITA 588/LKW/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrakumar Talkies V. Income Tax Officer-1(1) Punjabi Market, Hospital Road, Fashion Point, 56, Civil Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Lines Near Prasad Cinema, Bareily-243001. Pan:Aaafk0045M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(3)Section 271Section 50C(2)

before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” (A.1) The appeal has been filed by the assessee beyond time limit prescribed under section 254(3) of the Income Page 3 of 6 Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). As per noting of Registry, this appeal is time barred

PRASHANT,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(3), KANPUR

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

ITA 514/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraprashant, V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3) 2-B, Wazidpur, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010. Aaykar Bhawan, 16/69, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Admpk9965F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250Section 254(3)Section 50C

ground of appeal with kind permission of your honour.” 1.1 The appeal has been filed by the assessee beyond time limit prescribed under section 254(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). As per noting of Registry, this appeal is time barred by one day. The assessee

ASHOK KUMAR RAJA,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(4),, PILIBHIT

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

ITA 632/LKW/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraashok Kumar Raja V. Ito-2(4) Awas Vikas Colony, Pilibhit- Pilibhit, U.P. 262001. Pan:Alppr2326G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms Shweta Mittal, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms Shweta Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 147Section 250(6)Section 254(3)

being heard then he could explain the all facts.” 2. The appeal has been filed by the assessee beyond time limit prescribed under section 254(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal ... assessee. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned. In view of Section 254(3) of the Act, I condone the delay in filing of this appeal and I admit the appeal for decision of merits. 3. In this case, vide

DIVESH KUMAR,BAREILLY vs. ACIT CENTRAL, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 389/LKW/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Divesh Kumar Shri Kharak Singh V. Rawat, 19, Shishgarh, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh-243105. Dc/Acit-Cent, Bareilly Office Of The Acit, Central Circle Dc/Acit Cent Bareilly-1-243001 Pan:Cfdpk1712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 19 11 2024

For Appellant: None (Adj application filed)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 127Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 69A

impugned appellate order dated 16.02.2023 of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal has been filed by the assessee beyond time limit prescribed under section 254(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay on medical grounds ... Shahjahanpur Road, Bareilly. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned. In view of Section 254(3) of the Act, I condone the delay in filing of this appeal and I admit the appeal for decision of merits

M/S U.P HINDI SANSTHAN,LUCKNOW vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 727/LKW/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. U.P. Hindi Sansthan. Commissioner Of Income V. 6, Hindi Sansthan, Mg Road, Tax (Exemptions) Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001. T.C. 46V, 5Th Floor, Upsidc Ltd, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aaaau1297Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S. U.P. Hindi Sansthan. Tax (Exemptions) 6, Hindi Sansthan, Mg T.C. 46V, 5Th Floor, Upsidc Ltd, Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow- Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, 226001. Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aaaju0103A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Hariom Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 254(3)

same. 2 The appeal vide ITA. No.727/LKW/2019 for AY. 2016-17 has been filed by the assessee beyond time limit prescribed under section 254(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal ... assessee. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned. In view of Section 254(3) of the Act, we condone the delay in filing of this appeal and we admit the appeal for decision of merits. ITA Nos.198 & 727/LKW/2019 Page 3

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P HINDI SANSTHAN, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 198/LKW/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. U.P. Hindi Sansthan. Commissioner Of Income V. 6, Hindi Sansthan, Mg Road, Tax (Exemptions) Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001. T.C. 46V, 5Th Floor, Upsidc Ltd, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aaaau1297Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S. U.P. Hindi Sansthan. Tax (Exemptions) 6, Hindi Sansthan, Mg T.C. 46V, 5Th Floor, Upsidc Ltd, Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow- Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, 226001. Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aaaju0103A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Hariom Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 254(3)

same. 2 The appeal vide ITA. No.727/LKW/2019 for AY. 2016-17 has been filed by the assessee beyond time limit prescribed under section 254(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal ... assessee. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned. In view of Section 254(3) of the Act, we condone the delay in filing of this appeal and we admit the appeal for decision of merits. ITA Nos.198 & 727/LKW/2019 Page 3

VIMLESH KUMAR,RAEBARELI vs. ITO, RAEBARELI

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

ITA 524/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow19 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivatava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vimlesh Kumar Income Tax Officer V. Village & Post Thulendi, Income Tax Building, Jail Bachhrawan, Raebareli- Road, Raebareli-229001. 229301. Pan:Blbpk4834R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application filed)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250(4)Section 254(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 69

arbitrary capricious, misconceived, erroneous and against the principle of natural justice.” 2. This appeal has been filed beyond time limit prescribed under section 254(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal ... Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned. In view of the foregoing, and the provisions of Section 254(3) of the Act, we condone the delay in filing of this appeal. The appeal is admitted for decision of merits. 3. In this case