SHERVANI SUGAR SYNDICATE LIMITED,C/O B. K. KAPUR CO. vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. National Faceless Limited Assessment Centre 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad- Delhi. 201001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. Dc/Acit-2, Allahabad Limited Office Of The Assistant C/O 17, Navyug Market, Commissioner Of Income Ghaziabad-201001. Tax, Allahabad, Allahabad-211001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Madhav Kapur Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

D E R PER SUBHASH MALGURIA, J.M.: These two appeals have been filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2012-13 against the respective impugned appellate orders each dated 14.02.2025. For the sake of convenience, both appeals were heard together and are being ITA No.137 & 138/ALLD/2025 Page 2 of 6 disposed of by way of consolidated order. First

SHERVANI SUGAR SYNDICATE LIMITED,GHAZIABAD vs. DC/ACIT-2, ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. National Faceless Limited Assessment Centre 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad- Delhi. 201001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. Dc/Acit-2, Allahabad Limited Office Of The Assistant C/O 17, Navyug Market, Commissioner Of Income Ghaziabad-201001. Tax, Allahabad, Allahabad-211001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Madhav Kapur Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

D E R PER SUBHASH MALGURIA, J.M.: These two appeals have been filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2012-13 against the respective impugned appellate orders each dated 14.02.2025. For the sake of convenience, both appeals were heard together and are being ITA No.137 & 138/ALLD/2025 Page 2 of 6 disposed of by way of consolidated order. First

MEJA URJA NIGAM (P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD-2 (2), ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for ay: 2015-16 and 2016-17

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

condone the delay in filing of the appeal(s) late by assessee by 48 days beyond the time stipulated u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act and admit both these appeals for ay: Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively, to be now adjudicated on merits. We order accordingly. ITA No. 54/Alld/2020- Assessment Year

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

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 appeals

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

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 appeals

ACHCHHE LAL YADAV (DECEASED) L/H AMAR SINGH YADAV,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 2(1)ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Subhash Malguria & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

D E R PER SUBHASH MALGURIA, J.M. This appeal vide I.T.A. No.93/Alld//2025 has been filed by the assessee against the impugned appellate order dated 27/05/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065139877(1) of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2. This appeal has been filed by the assessee beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee

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.

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

M/S UDVASIT BEROJGAR SAHAKARI SHRAM SAMVIDA SAMITI LTD.,,SONBHADRA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19

6. It would also be appropriate to take note of section 43B of the Act primarily for the reason that in Vinay Cement Ltd.'s case (supra) it was this provision which came up for discussion before the Supreme Court and also keeping in view the contention of learned counsel for the Revenue that this judgment would

SATYA PRAKASH GUPTA,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

D E R PER BENCH: These four appeals, filed by assessee, being ITA Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6/Alld./2022 for assessment year(s)(ay’s): 2006-07 to 2009-10 respectively , are directed against separate appellate order(s) all dated 18.09.2019 in Appeal Nos. CIT(A),Allahabad/10409/2014-15, CIT(A),Allahabad/10413/2014-15,CIT(A),Allahabad/10411/2014-15, ITA Nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6/Alld./2022 Assessment

SATYA PRAKASH GUPTA,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

D E R PER BENCH: These four appeals, filed by assessee, being ITA Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6/Alld./2022 for assessment year(s)(ay’s): 2006-07 to 2009-10 respectively , are directed against separate appellate order(s) all dated 18.09.2019 in Appeal Nos. CIT(A),Allahabad/10409/2014-15, CIT(A),Allahabad/10413/2014-15,CIT(A),Allahabad/10411/2014-15, ITA Nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6/Alld./2022 Assessment

SATYA PRAKASH GUPTA,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

D E R PER BENCH: These four appeals, filed by assessee, being ITA Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6/Alld./2022 for assessment year(s)(ay’s): 2006-07 to 2009-10 respectively , are directed against separate appellate order(s) all dated 18.09.2019 in Appeal Nos. CIT(A),Allahabad/10409/2014-15, CIT(A),Allahabad/10413/2014-15,CIT(A),Allahabad/10411/2014-15, ITA Nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6/Alld./2022 Assessment

SATYA PRAKASH GUPTA,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

D E R PER BENCH: These four appeals, filed by assessee, being ITA Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6/Alld./2022 for assessment year(s)(ay’s): 2006-07 to 2009-10 respectively , are directed against separate appellate order(s) all dated 18.09.2019 in Appeal Nos. CIT(A),Allahabad/10409/2014-15, CIT(A),Allahabad/10413/2014-15,CIT(A),Allahabad/10411/2014-15, ITA Nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6/Alld./2022 Assessment

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

253(3) of the 1961 Act , as in our considered view sufficient cause is shown by the assessee, and hence we 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

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

253(3) of the 1961 Act , as in our considered view sufficient cause is shown by the assessee, and hence we 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

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

253(3) of the 1961 Act , as in our considered view sufficient cause is shown by the assessee, and hence we 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

COMMERCIAL AUTO SALES PVT. LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

6. It would also be appropriate to take note of section 43B of the Act primarily for the reason that in Vinay Cement Ltd. 's case (supra) it was this provision which came up for discussion before the Supreme Court and also keeping in view the contention of learned counsel for the Revenue that this judgment would

VISHNU KUMAR KESARWANI ,PRAYAGRAJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(3), ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M. (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.116/Alld/2025 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 against impugned appellate order dated 21/03/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1063130244(1) of Addl/JCIT of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“ADDL/JCIT(A)” for short]. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: I.T.A. No.116/Alld/2025

BALESHWAR NATH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,,BHADOHI vs. CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

253(3) of IT Act. 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 Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation

SHRI NEERAJ MAHESHWARI,SONEBHADRA vs. DY. CIT, (CPC), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Before Shri. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Neeraj Maheshwari, V. Shri Amrit Raj Singh, Bijpur Rihand Nagar, Sonebhadra- Dy. Commissioner Of Inco Tax, 2312233, U.P. Cpc Bangalore Pan- Afvpm5660E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. A.K. Pandey, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022 O R D E R

6. It would also be appropriate to take note of section 43B of the Act primarily for the reason that in Vinay Cement Ltd. 's case (supra) it was this provision which came up for discussion before the Supreme Court and also keeping in view the contention of learned counsel for the Revenue that this judgment would