GYAN VIKAS SAMITI ,AMBEDKAR NAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMBEDKAR NAGAR

In the result, the impugned orders of the Ld

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay, supported by affidavit. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned. Being satisfied with the reasons stated in application seeking condonation of delay in filing of these appeals; we condone the delay in filing of these

GYAN VIKAS SAMITI,AMBEDKAR NAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , AMBEDKAR NAGAR

In the result, the impugned orders of the Ld

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications for condonation of delay, supported by affidavit. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned. Being satisfied with the reasons stated in application seeking condonation of delay in filing of these appeals; we condone the delay in filing of these

KANODIA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT(CPC), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16 Kanodia Investments Private Deputy Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax 1, Lukerganj, Allahabad, U.P. V. Centralized Processing Centre Bengaluru Pan: Aabck0604Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 249(2)(b) of the 1961 Act. The ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee did not show sufficient cause before ld. CIT(A) for filing its appeal late beyond the time provided under the 1961 Act , and thus, the ld. CIT(A) refused to condone the delay. Thus, prayers were made by ld. Sr. DR to dismiss this

PRINCIPAL MAULANA AZAD INTER COLLEGE,,SIDDHARTH NAGAR vs. JOINT CIT(TDS), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

delay of 271 days in filing these appeals is condoned. Assessment Years:2008-09 to 2012-13 7. The assessee has raised common grounds in these appeals. The grounds raised for the assessment year 2008-09 are as under:- BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), dismissing

PRINCIPAL MAULANA AZAD INTER COLLEGE,,SIDDHARTH NAGAR vs. JOINT CIT(TDS), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

delay of 271 days in filing these appeals is condoned. Assessment Years:2008-09 to 2012-13 7. The assessee has raised common grounds in these appeals. The grounds raised for the assessment year 2008-09 are as under:- BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), dismissing

PRINCIPAL MAULANA AZAD INTER COLLEGE,,SIDDHARTH NAGAR vs. JOINT CIT(TDS), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

delay of 271 days in filing these appeals is condoned. Assessment Years:2008-09 to 2012-13 7. The assessee has raised common grounds in these appeals. The grounds raised for the assessment year 2008-09 are as under:- BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), dismissing

PRINCIPAL MAULANA AZAD INTER COLLEGE,,SIDDHARTH NAGAR vs. JOINT CIT(TDS), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

delay of 271 days in filing these appeals is condoned. Assessment Years:2008-09 to 2012-13 7. The assessee has raised common grounds in these appeals. The grounds raised for the assessment year 2008-09 are as under:- BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), dismissing

PRINCIPAL MAULANA AZAD INTER COLLEGE,,SIDDHARTH NAGAR vs. JOINT CIT(TDS), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

delay of 271 days in filing these appeals is condoned. Assessment Years:2008-09 to 2012-13 7. The assessee has raised common grounds in these appeals. The grounds raised for the assessment year 2008-09 are as under:- BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), dismissing

HINDI SAHITYA SAMMELAN,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 12, Sammelan Marg, Allahabad- (Exemption), Allahabad 211003 Pan:Aaath6056L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 22.02.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Against The Orders Of The Ito(Exemption)Dated 28.03.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:- “1. That In Any View Of The Matter Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 28.03.2016 Is Bad Both On The Facts & In Law As The Income Of The Society Is Exempt From Tax Which Will Appear From The Assessment Record But The A.O. Ignored The Past Record. 2. That In Any View Of The Matter Cit(A) Is Highly Unjustified In Passing Ex-Parte Order Without Giving Proper Opportunity To The Appellant & More So Cit(A) Has Ignored The Past Record Of The Appellant'S Society, Hence, His Entire Action Is Liable To Be Declared Illegal As Well As Bad In Law. 3. That In Any View Of The Matter The Income Of The Society Is Exempt From Income Tax From The Date Of Its Inception But The Claim Of Exemption Was Not Properly Considered By The Two Lower Authorities, Hence, Their Orders Are Bad In Law As Well As Illegal.

condoning the delay. 2 A.Y. 2013-14 Hindi Sahitya Sammelan 3. The facts of the case are that the ld. AO observed that, from the gross receipts during the year of Rs.4,12,26,286/-, the assessee had only spent Rs.3,30,91,277/- on Revenue expenditure and Rs.19,303/- on fixed assets and accumulated Rs.19,31,763/- for specified

RAHUL SHARMA,MIRZAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 3(2), MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Nikhil Choudharyi.T.A. No.98/Alld/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits. 5. The grounds of appeal preferred by the assessee in Form 36 are as follows: “1. BECAUSE the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without giving adequate and effective opportunity of being heard. 2. BECAUSE the notices

SBW UDYOG LIMITED,,PRAYAGRAJ vs. DCIT, CIR-1,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh.Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2021-22 Sbw Udyog Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 44, Thornhill Road, Prayagraj Tax, Circle-1, Prayagraj Pan:Aadcs2883B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. N.C. Agrawal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 .03.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 31.01.2024, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cpc Bengaluru, Under Section, 143(1) Dated 17.10.2022. Subsequently, The Said Appeal Was Migrated To The Nfac & Later On, The Appeal Proceedings Were Transferred To The Additional / Jcit(A), Aurangabad, Who Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Because, Income Tax Department, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India Has Observed In The Notice Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Reads As Under:- "The Income Tax Department Recognizes & Is Sensitive To The Hardships Being Faced By Taxpayers In Coping With The Challenges Posed By Covid-19 Pandemic." Consequently, Appeal Is Liable To Be Allowed.

delay in deposit of employees contribution to PF/ESI beyond the due date as prescribed in those Acts cannot be condoned. 10. The next issue that has been raised bythe ld. AR is that subsequent to the order under section

MOHD. SULAMAN FAROOQUI ,PRATAPGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PRATAPGARH

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

delay of 74 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. That in view of the matter assessment framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 18/12/18 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on income Rs. 15,98,850/- is bad both on the facts and in law. 2. That

RAKESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA,ALLAHABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER- 2(1), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for short, dated 22/03/2022 was passed by CPC, Bangaluru raising a demand of Rs.3,14,270/- vide demand reference No.2021202137053054511T. Being aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 03/12/2024, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned

HUSHN JAHAN,AMETHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AMETHI, AMETHI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Hushn Jahan V. The Income Tax Officer Palpur Raebareli Road Amethi Jagdishpur, Musfirkhana Amethi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Autpj9095P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R

10) Id. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.16,50,000/- without appreciating that the Id. Assessing Officer has erred in treating a part of the deposits as business income and the balance deposits made during demonetization as unexplained money u/s 69A; (11) Id. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in confirming the addition under section

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

condone the delay in filing of all these three appeals and proceed to adjudicate these three appeals on merits in accordance with law.We order accordingly. ITA No. 20/Alld/2020- AY 2012-13 3. First , we shall take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 20/Alld/2020 for ay: 2012-13 . The grounds of appeals raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3) , ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

condone the delay in filing of all these three appeals and proceed to adjudicate these three appeals on merits in accordance with law.We order accordingly. ITA No. 20/Alld/2020- AY 2012-13 3. First , we shall take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 20/Alld/2020 for ay: 2012-13 . The grounds of appeals raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed

TRIVENI GLASS LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao& Shri Ramit Kochar

condone the delay in filing of all these three appeals and proceed to adjudicate these three appeals on merits in accordance with law.We order accordingly. ITA No. 20/Alld/2020- AY 2012-13 3. First , we shall take up assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 20/Alld/2020 for ay: 2012-13 . The grounds of appeals raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed

DILSHAD HUSAIN,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO- 2(1), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.52, 53 & 54/Alld/2024 A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2011-12 Dilshad Husain, Cit(Appeal), National 178, Salreha Pacchim, Sirathu, Vs. Faceless Appeal Centre Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Acbph7430G (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay and admit the appeal in the interest of justice. 9. Shri S.K. Yogeshwar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee. At the very outset, a query was posed from the Bench as to why the assessee had been non- compliant to the ld. CIT(A) in the second round of appeals after having himself requested