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

J.P. MOTOR RPIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2018-19 J.P. Motor Pvt. Ltd. V. The Acit 313/22, Khun Khun Ji Road Range 1 Chowk, Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aabcj6763H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 07 2022 O R D E R

139(1) of the Act. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeal) has not appreciated that during the relevant assessment year if the Provident Fund deposit of Employees contribution was made within the due date of filing of the return the same was an allowable deduction u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Page 2 of 17 3. That

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

139(1) of Income-tax Act. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in considering the amendment by Finance Act 2021 in provisions of section 36 read with section 43B of Income-tax Act as retrospective despite of it being prospective in light of Memorandum of Finance Bill

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

MOHD HASEEB,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2018-19 Mohd. Haseeb V. The Ito 551 Jha, Ram Nagar Range 6(2) Kanpur Road, Alambagh Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abcph6980P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16 06 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 06 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 29.12.2021, For Assessment Year 2018-19, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because Without Considering The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.23,88,734/- Under Section 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)X) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Being Delay In Deposition Of Employees Share Of Provident Fund. 2. That In Any Case & In Any View Of The Matter, Impugned Addition/Allowance Assessment Order Are Bad In Law, Illegal, Unjustified, Contrary To Facts & Law & Based Upon Recording Of Incorrect Facts & Finding, Without Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Hearing, In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice & The Same Deserves To Be Quashed.

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed his return of income on 20.10.2020, declaring an income of Rs.10,65,273/-. 4. While processing the return of income at CPC, Bangalore, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of payment of Rs.23,88,734/- under section

M/S. AVADH HOSPITAL AND HEART CENTRE,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-6, LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW

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

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

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 4. The brief facts of the case, for Assessment Year 2018-19, are that the assessee filed its return of income 20.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.2,49,78,200/-. The CPC, Bangalore disallowed the claim of deduction for payment of Rs.6,54,382/- under section 36(1

M/S AVADH HOSPITAL AND HEART CENTRE,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-6, LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW- NEW

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

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

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 4. The brief facts of the case, for Assessment Year 2018-19, are that the assessee filed its return of income 20.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.2,49,78,200/-. The CPC, Bangalore disallowed the claim of deduction for payment of Rs.6,54,382/- under section 36(1

MR. GULREJ ANSARI,UNNAO vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), UNNAO NEW

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

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

condonation of delay which happened to be due to onset of COVID-19 and due to delay in the decision on application filed by assessee u/s. 154 of the Act. It was submitted that in respect of Assessment Year 2018-19, the application for rectification was rejected by CPC on 16.1.2020 and the appeal was to be filed

MR. GULREJ ANSARI,UNNAO vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), UNNAO-NEW

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

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

condonation of delay which happened to be due to onset of COVID-19 and due to delay in the decision on application filed by assessee u/s. 154 of the Act. It was submitted that in respect of Assessment Year 2018-19, the application for rectification was rejected by CPC on 16.1.2020 and the appeal was to be filed

M/S GULATI EXTRUSIONS PVT. LTD,KANPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Gulati Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit 17-A, Co-Operative Industrial Circle 2(1)(1) Estate Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaacg5008M (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 1.3.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of Five Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Director Of The Assessee Company Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Stating Therein That The Papers Required For Filing The Appeal Was Sent Through Speed Post On 27.4.2021 Well Within The Limitation Period, However The Same Was Delivered By The Postal Authorities In The Office Of The Tribunal On 5.5.2021. It Was Further Stated That Since The Nominal Delay Of Five Days Was Due To Late Delivery Of The Dak By The Postal Authorities, The Delay May Be Condoned & The Appeal Be Admitted For Hearing. Having Carefully Perused The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That There Was Sufficient Cause For The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. Accordingly, The Delay Of 5 Days Is Condoned & Admit This Appeal For Hearing.

delay of 5 days is condoned and admit this appeal for hearing. Page 2 of 23 3. 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. At the outset, it is noticed that the issue involved in this appeal

M/S PRAMOD TELECOM PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, in ITA. No

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

delay may be condoned. 3. We have duly considered the facts submitted and after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. M/s Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2020-21 MST. Katiji & Ors 167 ITR 471 (SC), the appeals are admitted for hearing on their merits

M/S PRAMOD TELECOM PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, in ITA. No

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

delay may be condoned. 3. We have duly considered the facts submitted and after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. M/s Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2020-21 MST. Katiji & Ors 167 ITR 471 (SC), the appeals are admitted for hearing on their merits

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

139(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has also observed in his impugned appellate order that First Appellate Authority was not invested with powers of condoning the delay of filing of return of income. The relevant portion of the impugned appellate order dated 07/02/2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: - “4.1 Ground Nos. 1

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

139 of the Act should be condoned; in all other cases of belated applications in filing Form No.10B for assessment years prior to assessment year 2018-19, Commissioners of Income Tax have been authorized to admit and dispose of such applications by 31.03.2020. While entertaining such belated applications, Commissioners should satisfy themselves that the assessees were prevented by reasonable cause

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

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 by the assessee in the appeal regarding the addition made

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

139(1) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has also observed in his impugned appellate order that First Appellate Authority was not invested with powers of condoning the delay of filing of return of income. The relevant portion of the impugned appellate order dated 07/02/2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: - “4.1 Ground Nos. 1

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,, LUCKNOW

condone the delay. Accordingly, we do not treat the appeal of\nRevenue as barred by limitation. The appeal is treated as having been filed\nin time, and is being decided on merits. In this appeal filed by Revenue,\nfirst issue in dispute is assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act\namounting to Rs.2

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide I

1.\n\nFurther, the reference is also drawn to the Hon'ble Supreme Court Decision\nin the case of CIT vs Gold Coin Health Food (P) Ltd. (2018) 9 SCC 622 wherein\nHon'ble Apex Court has held that if the intention of the amendment is curative or\n\nmerely declaratory, it will have retrospective application. The Hon'ble Supreme

MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,KANPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

139, and such an opportunity having not been given to the assessee, no adjustment under section 143(1)(a) (ii) of the "Act" could have been made by the CPC/sustained by "CIT(A)". 7. BECAUSE, without prejudice to the grounds hereinfore, while confirming the dis-allowance of exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act, the ld."Addl/JCIT(A)" failed