M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

166 & 701 have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders of learned CIT(A) dated 21/02/2019, 21/02/2019 and 26/11/2019 respectively. The Revenue has also filed Cross Objections against the appeals in I.T.A. No.166 and 701. 2. In these appeals the assessee has taken various grounds of appeal. However, the crux of grounds of appeal is the action

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

166 & 701 have been filed by the assessee against the separate orders of learned CIT(A) dated 21/02/2019, 21/02/2019 and 26/11/2019 respectively. The Revenue has also filed Cross Objections against the appeals in I.T.A. No.166 and 701. 2. In these appeals the assessee has taken various grounds of appeal. However, the crux of grounds of appeal is the action

ARUN KUMAR MAURYA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delayed and in such circumstance, there should have been a notice issued under section 143(2) as has been held in Hotel Blue Moon (supra). 4. The only question of law arising in the facts and circumstances of the case is whether notice should have been issued under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act? 5. Admittedly, the notice

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

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUCKNOW, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW vs. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., VIBHUTI KHAND GOMTI NAGAR LKO

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

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FAIZABAD vs. SMT. SARITA NAINWANI, PROP. M/S. BHOLA PHARMA, FAIZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2011-12 The Dy. Cit V. Smt. Sarita Nainwani Circle, Faizabad Prop. M/S Bhola Pharma 3/2/18, Mukeri Tola Faizabad Tan/Pan:Ahtpn1830B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Sarita Nainwani V. The Income Tax Officer-Ii Prop. M/S Bhola Pharma Faizabad 3/2/18, Mukeri Tola Faizabad Tan/Pan:Ahtpn1830B (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Assessee By : Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 25 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 08 2022 O R D E R

condone the delay. 4. The Revenue has raised the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,76,12,585/- ignoring the facts brought out by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has made cash payments to parties on a regular basis, thus violating the provisions

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

166/- made by the Assessing Officer by applying a net profit rate of 11% \nafter rejecting the book results as per section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, \nwithout appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to produce books of accounts, \nbills and vouchers during the assessment and search proceedings, and that the \ntrading results shown

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

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

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD. ,BAGHAULI, HARDOI vs. THE ITO RANGE-3(3), HARDOI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

condone the delay in filing of the appeals and admit the appeals for hearing. 6.0 The Ld. A.R. submitted that in both the appeals, the AO has disallowed assessee’s claim under section 80P of the Act ITA Nos.218 & 219/LKW/2022 Page 9 of 10 completely ignoring the settled judicial precedents which are in favour of the assessee. He placed specific

SAHAKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD,,BAGHAULI, HARDOI vs. THE ITO, RANGE-3(2), HARDOI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

condone the delay in filing of the appeals and admit the appeals for hearing. 6.0 The Ld. A.R. submitted that in both the appeals, the AO has disallowed assessee’s claim under section 80P of the Act ITA Nos.218 & 219/LKW/2022 Page 9 of 10 completely ignoring the settled judicial precedents which are in favour of the assessee. He placed specific

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD VIKRAMJOT BASTI,VIKRAMJOT vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER BASTI -NEW, INCOME TAX OFFICE BASTI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sahkari Ganna Vikas V. The Income Tax Officer Samiti Ltd. Basti Vikramjot, Basti (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aabas4611B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None 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 05.12.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912. The Main Activity Of The Assessee Was Marketing Of Sugar Cane Grown By The Cane Growers, Who Were Members Of The Assessee-Society. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 21.03.2018, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,73,170/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee-Society Had Received Commission From Sugar Mills On Supply Of Sugar Cane Of Rs.70,16,032/-, Which Was Claimed As Exempt In Terms Of Section 80P(2)(A)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act

section 143(3) issued by assessing officer Basti-New may also be quashed. 13. That the appellant craves leaves to aid or amend the grounds of appeal during the course of hearing before Hon'ble ITAT. 3.0 During the course of hearing, it was brought to my notice that there is a delay of 144 days in filing the appeal

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

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (C) For the sake of convenience, consolidated order is being passed in these five appeals. (C.1) In assessment year 2011-12, cross appeals have been filed by the two sides. Assessment order dated 29/03/2014 was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. In the aforesaid

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

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (C) For the sake of convenience, consolidated order is being passed in these five appeals. (C.1) In assessment year 2011-12, cross appeals have been filed by the two sides. Assessment order dated 29/03/2014 was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. In the aforesaid

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

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (C) For the sake of convenience, consolidated order is being passed in these five appeals. (C.1) In assessment year 2011-12, cross appeals have been filed by the two sides. Assessment order dated 29/03/2014 was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. In the aforesaid

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

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (C) For the sake of convenience, consolidated order is being passed in these five appeals. (C.1) In assessment year 2011-12, cross appeals have been filed by the two sides. Assessment order dated 29/03/2014 was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. In the aforesaid