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

6. Having said so, let us come back to legal precedents on the issue of condonation of delay. It is well settled principle of law by the decision of various courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors reported in [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC), where, the Hon'ble Supreme

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KANPUR vs. M.K.U PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

6 of the grounds of appeal filed before him, while deciding the assessee’s appeal vide appellate order dated 26.03.2018.” 2. At the very outset, it is observed that the cross objection is delayed by 99 days. The assessee has filed an application and an affidavit in support of such application for the condonation of delay. It has been submitted

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

195\n5\nKACHWA\n34,624,288\n34,740,997\n-116,709\nTotal\n451,476,014\n452,146,001\n-669,987\nTherefore resulting to above profit of eligible units will be reduced by\nRs.6,69,987/- in aggregate for computing deduction u/s 801A\nThe assessee was also asked to file a computation in respect of eligible units\nwith depreciation

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

In the result, appeals vide I

195\n5\nKACHWA\n34,624,288\n34,740,997\n-116,709\nTotal\n451,476,014\n452,146,001\n-669,987\n\nTherefore resulting to above profit of eligible units will be reduced by\nRs.6,69,987/- in aggregate for computing deduction u/s 801A\n\nThe assessee was also asked to file a computation in respect of eligible units

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

MRS. RANJANA,MRIZAPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs Ranjana V. The Assessing Officer Village Dewapur Pachwal Nafc Post Rajapur, Aamghat Mirzapur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aoxpr7130M (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Narendra Kumar Sahu, 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 31.03.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property Valued At Rs.60,00,000/- . The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice To The Assessee Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, The Assessee Neither Responded To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Nor Filed Any Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer (Ao)

195 (SC)]. 6. The addition of ₹30,000/-, being the TDS amount, was treated as unexplained without calling for any explanation from the appellant. Relevant supporting documents were available and could have been furnished if a proper opportunity had been provided. ITA No.505/LKW/2025 Page 5 of 9 7. The assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2), LUCKNOW vs. M/S DEV BHOOMI PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2012-13

delay was condoned and Learned D. R. was asked to proceed with his arguments. 3. Learned D. R. submitted that in this case the assessee had issued share capital to four companies at a premium and had forfeited the share application money and therefore, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to explain and on examination of the explanation, the Assessing

DILEEP KUMAR OJHA,SITAPUR vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sudhhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condone the delay in filing of the aforesaid appeals beyond the time limit prescribed under section 249(3) of the Act; and the assessee’s aforesaid appeals were dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) on grounds of limitation. For the sake of convenience and brevity, these eleven appeals are being hereby disposed ofs through this consolidated order. (2). The grounds

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

195\n5\nKACHWA\n34,624,288\n34,740,997\n-116,709\nTotal\n451,476,014\n452,146,001\n-669,987\nTherefore resulting to above profit of eligible units will be reduced by\nRs.6,69,987/- in aggregate for computing deduction u/s 801A\nThe assessee was also asked to file a computation in respect of eligible units\nwith depreciation

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GONDA vs. M/S COOPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD, BALRAMPUR, BALRAMPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: SH.SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

delay in filing of any of the appeals is condoned and all the appeals are being taken up for adjudication. 3. The facts of the case, in ITA No.243/Lkw/2020, are that the same was picked up for scrutiny on account of large deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO noted that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GONDA vs. M/S. CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, BALRAMPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: SH.SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

delay in filing of any of the appeals is condoned and all the appeals are being taken up for adjudication. 3. The facts of the case, in ITA No.243/Lkw/2020, are that the same was picked up for scrutiny on account of large deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO noted that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GONDA vs. M/S. CANE DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, BALRAMPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: SH.SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

delay in filing of any of the appeals is condoned and all the appeals are being taken up for adjudication. 3. The facts of the case, in ITA No.243/Lkw/2020, are that the same was picked up for scrutiny on account of large deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO noted that