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

condoning delay in such cases. The intention of legislature with respect to such cases is very clear that the remedy in such situation lies in the section 119

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

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

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

SYED MOHAMMAD MAYAR HUSAIN RIZVI,PANCHKULA vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALURU, BANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

119(2)(b) of the Act before the learned CIT(A), copy of which is placed at pages 30 to 38 of the paper book. However, the request of the assessee for condonation of delay was not considered favourably by the learned CIT(A) and the assessee’s appeal was dismissed treating the same as inadmissible on I.T.A. No.89/Lkw/2025 Assessment

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

delay being condonable as per section 119(2)(b), petition for which is pending adjudication before the CIT(Exemptions), the order

UDAAN SEWA SAMITI,KANPUR NAGAR vs. CPC BANGLORE, KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Udaan Seva Samiti V. The Cpc 250/4, Juhi Lal Colony Bangalore Kanpur Nagar Uttar Pradesh Tan/Pan:Aaaau7543F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.11.2023, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Mumbai For Assessment Year 2019-20. 3.1 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Society Registered Under Section 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). The Assessee-Society Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Under Section 139(1) On 26.01.2021, Declaring Total Income At Nil. The Assessee-Society Had Claimed Exemption Of Rs.12,97,442/- Relating To The Amount Applied For Charitable & Religious Purposes During The Previous Year. The Central Processing Centre (Cpc) Processed The Return Under Section 143(1) Of The Act

condone the delay on application being made by the assessee in terms of the provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the Act and, therefore

CO-OP-CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION GOLA,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. ITO RANGE-3(4), LAKHIMPUR KHERI-1

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaco-Op Cane Development The Income Tax Officer, V. Union Gola Range-3(4) C/O Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Lakhimpur Kheri-262701. Lakhimpur Kheri-262701, Up. Pan:Aaaac1960A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 10 2024 O R D E R

condoning delay in such cases. The intention of legislature with respect to such cases is very clear that the remedy in such situation lies in the section 119

WSG VENTURE PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. DCT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2022-23 Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, 1-59, Mig, Word Bank Barra, Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur Kanpur-208027 Pan:Aaccw7342L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit-1, Kanpur Passed Under Section 119 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 5.12.2024 Refusing To Condone The Delay In Filing The Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2022-23 With The Claimed Refund Of Rs. 10,000/-. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. That Due To Mistake Of Counsel, The Itr For The Ay 2022-23 Could Not Be Filed Of The Assessee Company, Whereas The Certificate Of The Counsel Was Also Filed, But Ignore The Same & Rejected The Petition Moved U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Act, Which Action Of The Pr. Cit Is Contrary To Fact & Be Quashed. 02. That The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit U/S.119 Of The Income Tax Act Reject The Petition For Condonation Of Delay Moved U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Act Is Not Lawful, Bad In Law, Be Quashed. 03. That The Pr. Cit As Well As Cpc Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Arbitrarily Rejecting The Petition Of The Assessee Company To Rectify The Return Of Income, Which Should Ought To Have Done. A.Y. 2022-23 Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd. 04. That The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit U/S 119 Dated 05.12.2024 Is Erroneous, Misconceived, Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law & Be Modified.”

section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 5.12.2024 refusing to condone the delay in filing the income tax return

UP GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

119(2)(b) of the Act for condoning of delay in filing revised return. It does not appear that any appeal or other legal ground was taken by the assessee with regard to the same.\n\nThe assessee has now come in appeal with regard to grounds as reproduced earlier in the order. At the very outset, we note that

RAMPAL,SITAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Vice President)

section 148A dated 29/03/2022 was served upon 80me “Ashish Kumar” on 30/03/2022 (the fact is based on certified information Provided by the Income Tax Officer Sitapur, (copy of the same is enclosed as annexure A). Kindly view the service of Notice on fake identity (ASHISH KUMAR’). The person named Ashish Kumar is neither any family member or relative of appellant

U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-VI, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

119/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section 14A does not use the word ‘income of the year’ but ‘income under the act’ and CBDT circular no. 05/2014 dated 11/02/2014 makes it clear that the expenses, which are relatable to earning of exempt income have to be considered for disallowance irrespective of the fact whether such

DCIT, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

119/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section 14A does not use the word ‘income of the year’ but ‘income under the act’ and CBDT circular no. 05/2014 dated 11/02/2014 makes it clear that the expenses, which are relatable to earning of exempt income have to be considered for disallowance irrespective of the fact whether such

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

119/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section 14A does not use the word ‘income of the year’ but ‘income under the act’ and CBDT circular no. 05/2014 dated 11/02/2014 makes it clear that the expenses, which are relatable to earning of exempt income have to be considered for disallowance irrespective of the fact whether such

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

119/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section 14A does not use the word ‘income of the year’ but ‘income under the act’ and CBDT circular no. 05/2014 dated 11/02/2014 makes it clear that the expenses, which are relatable to earning of exempt income have to be considered for disallowance irrespective of the fact whether such

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

119/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section 14A does not use the word ‘income of the year’ but ‘income under the act’ and CBDT circular no. 05/2014 dated 11/02/2014 makes it clear that the expenses, which are relatable to earning of exempt income have to be considered for disallowance irrespective of the fact whether such

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