MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(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

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

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

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(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

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

section 119(2)(b) cannot be faulted.” Page 7 of 14 4.12. Thus, once a specific course of action has been laid down by the competent authority under the Act, it is not open for the subordinate authorities to ignore such procedures. it may be beneficial to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

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)

154 r.w.s. 143(1) for the assessment year 2018-19 and under section 143(1) for the assessment year 2020-21. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. Because the CIT(A) has not given any direction for giving the credit of allowance of Gratuity addition of Rs.49,17,636.00 in the intimation, which was finally allowed

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)

154 r.w.s. 143(1) for the assessment year 2018-19 and under section 143(1) for the assessment year 2020-21. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. Because the CIT(A) has not given any direction for giving the credit of allowance of Gratuity addition of Rs.49,17,636.00 in the intimation, which was finally allowed

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

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 to appreciate that there was sufficient and reasonable cause for not filing the requisite audit report under section 12A of the "ACT" within the prescribed due date. 8. BECAUSE issue of allowability/dis-allowability of claim

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

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 to appreciate that there was sufficient and reasonable cause for not filing the requisite audit report under section 12A of the "ACT" within the prescribed due date. 8. BECAUSE issue of allowability/dis-allowability of claim

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

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 to appreciate that there was sufficient and reasonable cause for not filing the requisite audit report under section 12A of the "ACT" within the prescribed due date. 8. BECAUSE issue of allowability/dis-allowability of claim

AMAN INFRAPROPERTIES P. LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee- company e-filed its return of income on 30.09.2015, declaring a total income of Rs.24,61,560/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed under section

AMAN INFRAPROPERTIES P. LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee- company e-filed its return of income on 30.09.2015, declaring a total income of Rs.24,61,560/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed under section

SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION AND WELFARE AWARENESS,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shrisudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(1) of the Act whereby adjustment was made, making addition to the returned income. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 24.06.2024 whereby the assessee’s appeal was not admitted on limitation ground. The assessee’s appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case

ARIF MUNIR,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-(2)(1)(2), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Arif Munir V. The Ito(2)(1)(2) 13/397, Vip Road Kanpur Near Green Park Civil Lines, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Afjpm1226J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Pranendra Mirdha, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 03 2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 28.02.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Kolkata For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee E-Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 30.07.2017, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.5,92,280/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, In Response To The Queries Raised By The Assessing Officer (Ao), The Submission On Behalf Of The Assessee Was That Rs.2,44,000/- Was Deposited In His Bank Account Maintained With Hdfc Bank Limited Out Of His & His Wife’S Past Savings. Not Being Satisfied With The Reply Furnished

section 154 r.w.s. 250 of the Act, the appeal was filed before the Tribunal. It was prayed that the delay caused in filing the appeal was not deliberate and that the delay may please be condoned and the appeal be heard on merits. 6. The Ld. Sr. D.R. had no objection to the delay being condoned. 7

OM PRAKASH SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(4) , LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatom Prakash Singh V. The Income Tax Officer- J-166 Opp City School 1(4), Lucknow Raibareily Road, South City Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aidps7478M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27 10 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 10 2025 O R D E R

condone the delay in filing of this appeal and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the dispute has been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Page 2 of 3 Vishwas Scheme, 2024 and prayed for withdrawal of the appeal. And a letter dated 25.10.2025 along

UTTAR PRADESH CRICKET ASSOCIATION,KANPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. N.A. Uttar Pradesh Cricket Association, Vs. The Cit (Exemption), E-23, Kamla Nagar Township, Lucknow Nazirabad, Kanpur-208005 Pan:Aaacu7822R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(Exemption), Under Section 12Ab(1)(B)(Ii)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Rejecting The Application Moved For Registration Of The Said Society Under Section 12Ab(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “01. Because The Cit (Exemptions) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Rejecting The Application Moved For Registration Under Section 12A(B) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961, Which Rejection Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Registration As Claimed Be Granted. 02. Because The Cit(E) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Holding That No Response Had Been Filed To His Letter Dated 11.07.2024 Which Is Incorrect, In As Much As, Response Was Filed On 26.07.2024 Vide Letter Dated 25.07.2024 As Such, Rejecting The Application Without Considering The Submission Is Erroneous, Misconceived, The Order Passed Be Set Aside & Registration Claimed Be Granted.

154 that was pending before the ld. CIT(Exemption), it was prayed that the delay may be condoned. After duly considering the circumstances cited, the we feel it is a fit case of the condonation of delay and accordingly the delay of 138 is condoned. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed an application in Form

DHIRENDRA PRATAP,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2), WARD-3(2), HARDOI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2011-12 Dhirendra Pratap V. The Income Tax Officer A-16/1052, Sector 15 Ward 3(2) Near Vasundhra Complex Hardoi Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ayepp3148C (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 06.11.2018 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,75,750/-. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash To The Tune Of Rs.19,81,000/- In His Bank Account. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued A Query Letter Under Section 133(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) On 04.01.2018, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Source Of Cash Deposits Along With Other Evidentiary Proof, In Response To Which The Assessee Filed Reply On 07.02.2018. Since

section 154 of the Act and confirmed its order dated 19.12.2024 setting aside the order of the AO and restoring the matter to the file of the AO for making a fresh assessment, vide order dated 02.01.2025. 2.4 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the orders of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

condone the delay in filing of the revised return of income. The notices issued by the AO u/s 221(1) and 226(3) of the Act have also been challenged as have the recovery made by the AO. Finally the original intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act has also been appealed against in the grounds raised before

BALAJI EDUCATIONAL WELFARE SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, CPC, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Balaji Educational Welfare V. Assessing Officer, Cpc Society Lucknow-226001. Balaji Public School Near Railway Station Nawabganj, Barabanki-225001. Pan:Aacab8487H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sharad Srivastava, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

section 10(23C)(iiiad) of I.T. Act. The aforesaid application for rectification order u/s 154 of the Act was rejected vide order dated 22.06.2020 and the aforesaid addition of Rs.94,27,096/- was retained. The assessee filed appeal against the aforesaid order dated 22.06.2020 in the office of the Ld. CIT(A), vide impugned appellate order dated 23.09.2025. The assessee

M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. D/ACIT-1,CENTRAL-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

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