VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW.

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condonation of delay filed by the assessee and has not adjudicated the appeal on merits. 12. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee without providing the assessee with a due and proper opportunity of hearing and therefore the impugned order deserves to be set-aside being bad in law. 13. Because

WAKEEL AHAMAD,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2010-11 Mr Wakeel Ahamad Income Tax Officer-2(3) V. Sheeshgarh, Meerganj, Bareilly, Aayakar Bhawan, C.R. Uttar Pradesh-243505. Building, Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, Bareilly, (Up)-243001. Pan:Ajcpa9737B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

deduct tax under section 195, the date of payment of tax. (c) In any other case, the date on which intimation of the order sought to be appealed against is served. 6.2 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may admit belated application on sufficient cause being shown. Application for condonation of delay

M/S MODEL EXIM,KANPUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriam/S. Model Exim Pcit (Central) V. 624-C, Defence Colony, 7/81-B, Tilak Nagar, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010. Kanpur. Pan:Aadfm6163H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Smt Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 29 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 11 2024 O R D E R

condone the delay in filing of appeal before us and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of finished leather and sale of license. The assessee company had filed its Page 9 of 24 return of income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(E), LUCKNOW vs. M/S. VYAVSAYIK PARIKSHA PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Cit (Exemptions) V. M/S Vyavsayik Pariksha Parishad Lucknow 2, Aliganj Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaatv9447J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Smt. Abha Kala Chanda, Cit (Dr) Respondent By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 17 08 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07 09 2021 O R D E R

deducted the revenue expenditure of Rs.7,40,79,814/- from the gross receipt and assessed the income accordingly. 3. By virtue of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee, bringing the Department in appeal before us. 4. Before us, the ld. D.R., challenging the impugned order, contended that

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

condonation of ITA. Nos. 301 to 304/LKW/2025024 Page 2 of 10 delay petition and dismissing the appeal solely on this ground by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is not justified. 2. That the return filed u/s 44AD of IT. Act, w.r.t sale of country liquor Rs.75,10,075/- on retail basis at an income of Rs.6,00,807/- and net taxable

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

condonation of ITA. Nos. 301 to 304/LKW/2025024 Page 2 of 10 delay petition and dismissing the appeal solely on this ground by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is not justified. 2. That the return filed u/s 44AD of IT. Act, w.r.t sale of country liquor Rs.75,10,075/- on retail basis at an income of Rs.6,00,807/- and net taxable

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

condonation of ITA. Nos. 301 to 304/LKW/2025024 Page 2 of 10 delay petition and dismissing the appeal solely on this ground by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is not justified. 2. That the return filed u/s 44AD of IT. Act, w.r.t sale of country liquor Rs.75,10,075/- on retail basis at an income of Rs.6,00,807/- and net taxable

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

condonation of ITA. Nos. 301 to 304/LKW/2025024 Page 2 of 10 delay petition and dismissing the appeal solely on this ground by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is not justified. 2. That the return filed u/s 44AD of IT. Act, w.r.t sale of country liquor Rs.75,10,075/- on retail basis at an income of Rs.6,00,807/- and net taxable

ARPIT KUMAR TOMAR,UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Arpit Kumar Tomar Income Tax Officer V. Flat No.B3, B21, Krishna 6(1), Lucknow, Uttar Garden, Sadarpur, Ghaziabad, Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh-201021. Pan:Ajbpt8004B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri V. Balaji, Fca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 02 2025 O R D E R

delay in filing of Form 10B and condonation thereof vis a vis the circulars issued by CBDT in exercise of powers vested under section 119(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 came up before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the case of Little Angels Education Society Vs Union of India and Others

CHARAK HELTH CARE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-CC-2, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

delay condonation and filed the audit report in Form No. 10B on 30.08.2022 vide Acknowledgment No. 459721360310822 when the functionality became available. Though the intimation was not available with the assessee, but it appeared that its income had been computed at Rs. 3,82,80,430/- and it was submitted that the action of the CPC was wholly erroneous

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

condonation of delay. This would have permitted the appeal to be evaluated based on its substantive merits. 2. The Total Income reported amounts to Rs. 3,84,520.00. However, the assessment was conducted at a substantially inflated figure of Rs. 1,11,14,956.00. This discrepancy arises from specific additions and disallowances made by the Income Tax Department, based

CENTRAL METHODIST CHURCH,LUCKNOW vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

condonable as per section 119(2)(b), petition for which is pending adjudication before the CIT(Exemptions), the order passed by the CIT(A) be set aside. 02. Because the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the delay in filing Form No. 10B was purely on account of the delay caused on account of the person preparing and filing

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNIAN, LTD. ,LAKHIPUR KHERI vs. ITO WARD-3(4), LAKHIPUR-1

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted. (C) In this case the return filed by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and an intimation dated 29/10/2020 was issued to the assessee by Revenue denying the deduction

UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

condonation of delay in\nfiling of Form No.10B was not furnished, and the respective finding of both the lower\nauthorities being factually incorrect, the assessee's claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act\ndeserves to be accepted.\n8\nBECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without\nprejudice to each other.\n9.\nBECAUSE the order appealed against

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT\nAND\nSHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)

condonation of delay in\nfiling of Form No.10B was not furnished, and the respective finding of both the lower\nauthorities being factually incorrect, the assessee's claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act\ndeserves to be accepted.\n\n8 BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without\nprejudice to each other.\n\n9. BECAUSE the order

LALBAGH CHRISTIAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.104/Lkw/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23 Lalbagh Christian Educational V. The Commissioner Of Society Income Tax (Exemption) Lal Bagh, Lucknow-226001. 5Th Floor, Tc-46, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Next To Lohia Hospital, Indra Nagar, Luckow-226010. Pan:Aaatl2080P अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07 07 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 10 07 2025 Pronouncement: O R D E R

deducted, as against levying tax on the entire gross receipts, the order is erroneous be set aside.” 2. In this case, the assessee has taken multiple grounds stating that the delay in filing Form No.10B is a condonable

HARDOI DISTRICT CANE GROWERS CO-*OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. ITO-3(2),, HARDOI-1

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 Hardoi District Cane Growers V. The Ito 3(2) Co-Operative Society Ltd. Hardoi Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj Lakhimpur Kheri Tan/Pan:Aabah4032R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R

condonation of delay petition filed along with Form No. 35. Without prejudice to above. (3) That the Authorities below erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction

KWALITY RESTAURANT,KANPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 Kwality Restaurant V. The Cit(A) 16/97, The Mall Delhi Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaafk8712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.9.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 115 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Which Is Also Supported By An Affidavit. 3. I Have Gone Through The Application For Condonation Of Delay As Well As The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee & Heard The Contention Of The Ld. D.R. On The Issue Of Condonation Of Delay. The Ld. D.R. Has Objected To The Condonatiion Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Is Shifting The Blame Of Delay On Its Counsel. 4. Having Considered The Reasons Explained By The Assessee In The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That The Assessee Has Explained The Cause Of Delay That Due To An Oversight Of The Counsel Of The Assessee, Necessary Steps For Filing

delay of 115 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 5. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing, however, an application for adjournment has been filed by the Authorised Representative of the assessee, which is considered and rejected, as the ground for seeking adjournment is very vague. Further, the issue raised