M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

condoned the delay in filing the Cross Objections and asked learned CIT, D.R. to proceed with her arguments on the Cross Objections. 4. Learned CIT, D.R. submitted that the Cross Objections are similar to the additional grounds of Revenue taken by the Revenue in the appeals no.630, Page 8 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 631 and others which

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

condoned the delay in filing the Cross Objections and asked learned CIT, D.R. to proceed with her arguments on the Cross Objections. 4. Learned CIT, D.R. submitted that the Cross Objections are similar to the additional grounds of Revenue taken by the Revenue in the appeals no.630, Page 8 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 631 and others which

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), KANPUR vs. SMT. RUMANA HAFEEZ, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2014-15

117-A, Noori Road, New Chungi, Jajmau, Kanpur, assessment year 2014-15- Reg. Kindly refer to the above. I.T.A. No.206/Lkw/2020 Assessment year:2014-15 2 In this connection, it is submitted that the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kanpur in the case of Smt. Rumana Hafeez for A.Y. 2014-15 has been received

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

condoned; and the Cross Objection is admitted for hearing, on merits. (B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the assessee’s side: 15 17 19 21 (B.1) Further, a consolidated synopsis, common for all the appeals and COs before us, was filed from assessee’s side

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

condoned; and the Cross Objection is admitted for hearing, on merits. (B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the assessee’s side: 15 17 19 21 (B.1) Further, a consolidated synopsis, common for all the appeals and COs before us, was filed from assessee’s side

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

condoned; and the Cross Objection is admitted for hearing, on merits. (B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the assessee’s side: 15 17 19 21 (B.1) Further, a consolidated synopsis, common for all the appeals and COs before us, was filed from assessee’s side

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

117/- is liable to be deleted. \n\n4. Because the assessment order dated 28.03.2024 passed by \nAO, after prior approval of Range Head dated 21.03.2024 is \nnot accordance with law and peculiar facts of the case and \nratio laid down by Hon'ble Courts. \n\nI.T.A. No.353/Lkw/2025, A.Y. 2022-23 (Assessee’s Appeal) \n\n1. Because

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. CI HOSPITALITY WORLDWIDE PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is allowed and Cross

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

condonation of delay. Accordingly, we do not treat the appeal as barred by limitation. The I.T.A. No.449/Lkw/2020 3 C.O.No.1/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2017-18 appeal is treated as having been filed in time, and is admitted for hearing on merits. (B) In this case the assessee filed the return of income on 30/10/2017 declaring loss of Rs.1

G.S.EXPRESS PVT.LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-CC-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal is held to be partly allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 G.S. Express Private Ltd., C-877 Vs. The D. Commissioner Of Income Mahanagar, Lucknow Tax, P.K. Complex, Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow Pan: Aaccg5655J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 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)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao, Imposing A Penalty Under Section 271B On 29.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A)-3, Lucknow Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Considering That The Show Cause Notice U/S 271B Of 1. T. Act Dated 31.12.2019, Did Not Specify That Whether The Penalty Is For Failure To Get Accounts Audited Or Failure To Furnish The Report & Thus Non Striking Of Irrelevant Clause Renders The Penalty Notice Invalid As Also The Consequential Penalty Order As Illegal & Liable To Be Quashed. Without Prejudice To Above 2-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming Penalty Of Rs. 1,50,000/- U/S 2718 Of 1. T. Act, Without Appreciating That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Delay In Audit & Obtaining Report U/S 44Ab Of It Act As Due To Search & Seizure On 01.02.2018 The Entire Records Were Seized By Investigation Wing. 3-That The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Did Not Appreciate That Books Of Accounts & Related Records Were Seized By Investigation Wing & Only After Obtaining Copy Of Seized Documents

117 taxman.com 321 (Guahati-Trib) ii. CIT vs. SSA Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxman.com 248 SC iii. M/s Sitaram Computech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No.656/LKW/2018 dated 16.07.2019 iv. Sh. Suraj vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1 in ITA No.331/LKW/2019 dated 26.06.2020 The assessee reiterated the facts leading to the delay in the conduct of audit and furnishing