SHRAMIK VIKAS SAHKARI SHRRAM SAMVIDA SAMITI LTD.,KANPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 1(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2019-20 Shramik Vikas Sahkari V. The Assessing Officer Shrram Samvida Samiti Ltd, Circle 1(1)(1) 135-K-2, Nankari, Iit Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R

139(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act”). While filing the return of income, the assessee duly claimed deduction under section 80P(ii)(vi) of the Act. However, the Centralized Processing Center (hereinafter ITA No.356/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 11 called “the CPC”) determined the total income of the assessee- society at Rs.21,61,640/- without allowing

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 the delay of 551 days in filing of appeal owing to Covid-19 pandemic and without considering that the delay period is covered by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo moto Writ petition No. 3/2020 and also by the CBDT Circular 10/2021 dated 25.05.2021. I.T.A. No.348/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2019-20 2 WITHOUT PREHUDICE TO ABOVE

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)

section 139(4) of the Act. However, the assessee had filed an application for delay condonation and filed the audit

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 of 15 days is condoned to permit the assessee to withdraw the appeal. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 2022-23 on 7.11.2022 declaring its total income at Rs. Nil. The same was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and the total income

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

4. BECAUSE the ld "Addl/JCIT(A)" has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of CPC in making dis-allowance by way of adjustment u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of the "Act", whereas on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, such an adjustment was not permissible under the relevant provisions of law and CBDT

MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURE 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

4. BECAUSE the ld "Addl/JCIT(A)" has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of CPC in making dis-allowance by way of adjustment u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of the "Act", whereas on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, such an adjustment was not permissible under the relevant provisions of law and CBDT

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

4. BECAUSE the ld "Addl/JCIT(A)" has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of CPC in making dis-allowance by way of adjustment u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of the "Act", whereas on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, such an adjustment was not permissible under the relevant provisions of law and CBDT

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

Section 44AD of the Act @ 8% amounting to Rs.6,00,807/-. The Assessing Authority in para no. 4.5.2 of the assessment order, has stated that the payments made by the above entities on purchase of liquor and collected tax at source u/s 206CA of the Act does not appear to be made in the mode of cash. While there appears

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

Section 44AD of the Act @ 8% amounting to Rs.6,00,807/-. The Assessing Authority in para no. 4.5.2 of the assessment order, has stated that the payments made by the above entities on purchase of liquor and collected tax at source u/s 206CA of the Act does not appear to be made in the mode of cash. While there appears

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

Section 44AD of the Act @ 8% amounting to Rs.6,00,807/-. The Assessing Authority in para no. 4.5.2 of the assessment order, has stated that the payments made by the above entities on purchase of liquor and collected tax at source u/s 206CA of the Act does not appear to be made in the mode of cash. While there appears

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

Section 44AD of the Act @ 8% amounting to Rs.6,00,807/-. The Assessing Authority in para no. 4.5.2 of the assessment order, has stated that the payments made by the above entities on purchase of liquor and collected tax at source u/s 206CA of the Act does not appear to be made in the mode of cash. While there appears

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 of the Act. 4.2 At this stage, it will be relevant to reproduce the relevant provisions of section 143(1) of the Act which is as under: (a) The total income

NISHA FAZAL,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO-4(3), KANPUR-01

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay in filing of this\nappeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing.\n4.\nThe facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual\nand retired from the post of Chief Manager from LIC. The Assessing Officer\npassed assessment order under section 144 read with section 147 of the\nI.T. Act on 05/12/2019 assessing

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)

4. At the outset, the claim of the appellant that being a nodal agency, the grant\nreceived by it is governed by overriding title and hence should not be considered\nas income in its hands is self-contradictory. Perusal of the return of income filed by\nthe appellant shows that it is claiming exemption under Section

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

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

4. At the outset, the claim of the appellant that being a nodal agency, the grant\nreceived by it is governed by overriding title and hence should not be considered\nas income in its hands is self-contradictory. Perusal of the return of income filed by\nthe appellant shows that it is claiming exemption under Section

SRI SAINATH ASSOCIATES,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT-6, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merits. I.T.A. No.649/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 2 (C) In this case, the assessment order dated 01.12.2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”), u/s 143(3) of the Act whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.1,77,68,734/- as against

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

Section 139(5) is allowed to correct mistakes or\nomissions in the original return, but it cannot be used to introduce new claims that\nwere not initially included. The scope of revisions is limited to rectifying genuine\nerrors or omissions, not to include new claims that could have been made in the\noriginal return.\nThe Delhi High Court

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

In the result, appeals vide I

Section 139(5) is allowed to correct mistakes or\nomissions in the original return, but it cannot be used to introduce new claims that\nwere not initially included. The scope of revisions is limited to rectifying genuine\nerrors or omissions, not to include new claims that could have been made in the\noriginal return.\n\nThe Delhi High Court

SHASHI INFRA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ITO, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Shashi Infra V. The Constructions Pvt Ltd Addl/Joint/Deputy/Asstt/Income 328B, 5Th Lane Rajendra Tax Officer, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226004. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Tan/Pan:Aaucs5802M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merits. (B) In this case, the assessment order dated 23.03.2022 was passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income Page 3 of 22 Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.5