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

02 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 18.06.2023, pertaining to the assessment year 2019-20. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “Ground No. 1: Non grant

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

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)

delay being 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

BHAVAN RAVAT,RAEBARELI vs. ASSESSING AUTHORITY NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Bhavan Ravat Assessing Authority V. Vill. Rampur Sudauli, Nfac Raebareli-229301. Delhi Pan:Ajwpr1755Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12 03 2025 O R D E R

02 2025 Date of pronouncement: 12 03 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi dated 14.11.2024, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds

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)

condonation of delay in filing First Appeal. The action of the Ld. CIT(A) is violative of the principles of natural justice and without considering the peculiar facts of the case and grievous loss caused to the Appellant on account of technical errors. 3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in computing the period of delay in filing First

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

KASHYAP DIVYA JYOTI SEWA SOCIETY,SONEBHADRA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing of Form 10-B by the appellant for assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. As all these appeals have been filed on a common issue, therefore, they are being taken up together for the sake of convenience. 2. ITA No.66/LKW/2025 for the A.Y. 2015-16 being

KASHYAP DIVYA JYOTI SEWA SOCIETY,SONEBHADRA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION(, LUCKNOW

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing of Form 10-B by the appellant for assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. As all these appeals have been filed on a common issue, therefore, they are being taken up together for the sake of convenience. 2. ITA No.66/LKW/2025 for the A.Y. 2015-16 being

KASHYAP DIVYA JYOTI SEWA SOCIETY,SONEBHADRA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing of Form 10-B by the appellant for assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. As all these appeals have been filed on a common issue, therefore, they are being taken up together for the sake of convenience. 2. ITA No.66/LKW/2025 for the A.Y. 2015-16 being

M/S URBAN COOP BANK LTD,BAREILLY vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BAREILLY NEW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoor

delay was condoned and ld. AR was asked to proceed with her arguments. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the only issue, involved in this appeal, is the addition sustained by CIT(A) of Rs.15,49,764/- representing employees’ share towards contribution to EPF/ESIC which the assessee had deposited beyond the due date mentioned

BABIAN INN,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoor

delay was condoned and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his arguments. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the only issue, involved in this appeal, is the addition sustained by CIT(A) of Rs.1,67,054/- representing employees’ share towards contribution to EPF/ESIC which the assessee had deposited beyond the due date mentioned I.T.A

MR.SHITIJ DHAWAN,KANPUR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 Mr. Shitij Dhawan V. The Assessing Officer 122/235, Fazalganj Special Range Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Acqpd3380G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. Page 3 of 17 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed his return of income on 30.9.2019, declaring an income of Rs.20,19,01,760/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment, assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.20,21,20,480/-, disallowing

M/S. BIG BROKERS HOUSE STOCK LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,C.C-II, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoor

02. Because the CIT(A) stands incorrect in not commenting on the fact that there being no order under section 127 of the Act for transferring the file from ITO-5(1), New Delhi to ACIT, CC-II. Kanpur, the order passed by the ACIT, CC- 11, Kanpur is without jurisdiction, bad in law and be quashed. 03. Because

M/S. BIG BROKERS HOUSE STOCK LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,C.C-II, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoor

02. Because the CIT(A) stands incorrect in not commenting on the fact that there being no order under section 127 of the Act for transferring the file from ITO-5(1), New Delhi to ACIT, CC-II. Kanpur, the order passed by the ACIT, CC- 11, Kanpur is without jurisdiction, bad in law and be quashed. 03. Because

SHARDA DEVI,BASTI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, BASTI

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Sharda Devi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, W/O Shyam Singh, Near Zila Basti-New Chikitsalaya, Purani Basti, Basti-2721 Pan: Auspd8424B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 16.01.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of Penalty Passed By The Ld. Ao Dated 17.01.2022 In Limine Without Going Into The Merits Of The Case. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Being Cash Deposited In Bank During Demonetization Period Under Section 69A R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act, Which Addition Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law Be Deleted. 02. Because The Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Assessee Is Carrying On The Business Of Household Items, Such As, Business Of Achar, Kuchry (Grocery) Declaring Profit Under Section 44Ad @ 8% Wherein The Provisions Of Section 68 & Section 69 Are Not Applicable, The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Made By The Ao & Upheld By The Cit(A) Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law Be Deleted. 03. Because The Explanation Furnished By The Assessee Has Not Been Found False Of Untrue, The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Made By The Ao & Upheld By The Cit(A) Be Deleted.”

02. Because the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee is carrying on the business of household items, such as, business of Achar, Kuchry (Grocery) declaring profit under section 44AD @ 8% wherein the provisions of section 68 and section 69 are not applicable, the addition of Rs.8,11,663/- made by the AO and upheld

TIMECITY REAL ESTATES(INDIA) LIMTED,LUCKNOW vs. PCIT-1, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2015-2016

delay was condoned and both parties were heard. 3. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and in the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer had made certain additions and against which the assessee had filed appeal before learned CIT(A) and when the appeal of the assessee

SRI SURESH KHATRI,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(4), KANPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-14

condoned the delay and directed both the parties to argue the case on merits. 3. Ground Nos. 1 to 3 of the appeal relate to the disallowance of Rs.6,42,437/- for non deduction of tax at source u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on payment of ocean freight, made to non-resident shipping companies. The assessee