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

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

143(1)(a) (ii) of the "Act". 9 BECAUSE, without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds, even in the case of dis-allowance of claim of exemption u/s 11 of the "Act", the expenses incurred by the assessee for earning the gross receipts were liable to be deducted from the gross receipts, and only the surplus

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

143(1)(a) (ii) of the "Act". 9 BECAUSE, without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds, even in the case of dis-allowance of claim of exemption u/s 11 of the "Act", the expenses incurred by the assessee for earning the gross receipts were liable to be deducted from the gross receipts, and only the surplus

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

143(1)(a) (ii) of the "Act". 9 BECAUSE, without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds, even in the case of dis-allowance of claim of exemption u/s 11 of the "Act", the expenses incurred by the assessee for earning the gross receipts were liable to be deducted from the gross receipts, and only the surplus

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

condone either the delay or allow any claim of deduction. The ld. CIT(A) further noted that even as per the provisions of section 80AC (ii) of the Act, no deduction under any provisions of Chapter VIA was to be allowed w.e.f. 1.4.2018 unless the assessee had filed the return of income on or before the due date specified under

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 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

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

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

143 taxmann.com 209 (SC) Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961,\nread with rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 Expenditure incurred in relation to\nexempt income not includible in total income (General) - Assessment years 2013-14,\n2012-13 and 2011-12 High Court by impugned order held that where assessee did\nnot have exempt income, no disallowance

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

In the result, appeals vide I

143 taxmann.com 209 (SC) Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961,\nread with rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 Expenditure incurred in relation to\nexempt income not includible in total income (General) - Assessment years 2013-14,\n2012-13 and 2011-12 High Court by impugned order held that where assessee did\nnot have exempt income, no disallowance

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

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

143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to the “Act”) thereby declining the claim of Foreign Tax Credit (“FTC”). The application as filed u/s 154 of the Act was rejected. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who sustained the finding of the Assessing Authority on the basis that the assessee

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

KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, RURA,RURA, KANPUR DEHAT vs. CPC, BANGALORE ITO (EXEMPTION), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delay of more than 1 year 4 months. 4.2. For the sake of clarity relevant provisions of Section 249 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of appeal to the CJT(A) and limitation, are reproduced here under: " 249. Form of appeal and limitation : (1) Every appeal under this Chapter shall be in the prescribed form and shall

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

143 taxmann.com 209 (SC) Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961,\nread with rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 Expenditure incurred in relation to\nexempt income not includible in total income (General) - Assessment years 2013-14,\n2012-13 and 2011-12 High Court by impugned order held that where assessee did\nnot have exempt income, no disallowance

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

143(2) of the Act and on a due ITA Nos.271 to 273/LKW/2024 Page 7 of 16 consideration of this illegality alone, the ld "CIT(A)" ought to have held the assessment proceedings as void-abinitio and the assessment order as illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 4. BECAUSE the additions in the assessment order were made

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

143(2) of the Act and on a due ITA Nos.271 to 273/LKW/2024 Page 7 of 16 consideration of this illegality alone, the ld "CIT(A)" ought to have held the assessment proceedings as void-abinitio and the assessment order as illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 4. BECAUSE the additions in the assessment order were made

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. J/DCIT-CC,, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

143(2) of the Act and on a due ITA Nos.271 to 273/LKW/2024 Page 7 of 16 consideration of this illegality alone, the ld "CIT(A)" ought to have held the assessment proceedings as void-abinitio and the assessment order as illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 4. BECAUSE the additions in the assessment order were made

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section