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

condoned the delay in filing the Cross Objections and asked learned CIT, D.R. to proceed with her arguments on the Cross Objections. 4. Learned CIT, D.R. submitted that the Cross Objections are similar to the additional grounds of Revenue taken by the Revenue in the appeals no.630, Page 8 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 631 and others which

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

condoned the delay in filing the Cross Objections and asked learned CIT, D.R. to proceed with her arguments on the Cross Objections. 4. Learned CIT, D.R. submitted that the Cross Objections are similar to the additional grounds of Revenue taken by the Revenue in the appeals no.630, Page 8 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 631 and others which

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

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. 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

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

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

condonation of delay in\nfiling of Form No.10B was not furnished, and the respective finding of both the lower\nauthorities being factually incorrect, the assessee's claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act\ndeserves to be accepted.\n8\nBECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without\nprejudice to each other.\n9.\nBECAUSE the order appealed against

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)

condonation of delay in\nfiling of Form No.10B was not furnished, and the respective finding of both the lower\nauthorities being factually incorrect, the assessee's claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act\ndeserves to be accepted.\n\n8 BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without\nprejudice to each other.\n\n9. BECAUSE the order

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P FOREST CORPORATION, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2016-17

2 SCC 365 in the case of State of U.P. V Vijay Bahadur Singh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:- "In the first place....... The State is not merely interested in realizing revenue but is equally interested in the preservation and development of forests. It cannot knowingly enter into contracts with bidders who must have

M/S URBAN COOP BANK LTD,BAREILLY vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BAREILLY NEW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

condoned and ld. AR was asked to proceed with her arguments. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the only issue, involved in this appeal, is the addition sustained by CIT(A) of Rs.15,49,764/- representing employees’ share towards contribution to EPF/ESIC which the assessee had deposited beyond the due date mentioned in the provisions

BABIAN INN,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

condoned and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his arguments. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the only issue, involved in this appeal, is the addition sustained by CIT(A) of Rs.1,67,054/- representing employees’ share towards contribution to EPF/ESIC which the assessee had deposited beyond the due date mentioned I.T.A. No.85/Lkw/2021 Assessment

MOHD HASEEB,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2018-19 Mohd. Haseeb V. The Ito 551 Jha, Ram Nagar Range 6(2) Kanpur Road, Alambagh Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abcph6980P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16 06 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 06 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 29.12.2021, For Assessment Year 2018-19, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because Without Considering The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.23,88,734/- Under Section 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)X) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Being Delay In Deposition Of Employees Share Of Provident Fund. 2. That In Any Case & In Any View Of The Matter, Impugned Addition/Allowance Assessment Order Are Bad In Law, Illegal, Unjustified, Contrary To Facts & Law & Based Upon Recording Of Incorrect Facts & Finding, Without Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Hearing, In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice & The Same Deserves To Be Quashed.

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed his return of income on 20.10.2020, declaring an income of Rs.10,65,273/-. 4. While processing the return of income at CPC, Bangalore, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of payment of Rs.23,88,734/- under section

MR.SHITIJ DHAWAN,KANPUR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 Mr. Shitij Dhawan V. The Assessing Officer 122/235, Fazalganj Special Range Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Acqpd3380G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. Page 3 of 17 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed his return of income on 30.9.2019, declaring an income of Rs.20,19,01,760/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment, assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.20,21,20,480/-, disallowing

J.P. MOTOR RPIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2018-19 J.P. Motor Pvt. Ltd. V. The Acit 313/22, Khun Khun Ji Road Range 1 Chowk, Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aabcj6763H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 07 2022 O R D E R

condone the delay. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income 26.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.33,87,965/-. The return was processed by the CPC, Bangalore, who disallowed the PF and ESI, amounting to Rs.16,54,319/-, observing that the same was deposited after the due date but before

MR. GULREJ ANSARI,UNNAO vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), UNNAO NEW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

condonation of delay which happened to be due to onset of COVID-19 and due to delay in the decision on application filed by assessee u/s. 154 of the Act. It was submitted that in respect of Assessment Year 2018-19, the application for rectification was rejected by CPC on 16.1.2020 and the appeal was to be filed

MR. GULREJ ANSARI,UNNAO vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), UNNAO-NEW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

condonation of delay which happened to be due to onset of COVID-19 and due to delay in the decision on application filed by assessee u/s. 154 of the Act. It was submitted that in respect of Assessment Year 2018-19, the application for rectification was rejected by CPC on 16.1.2020 and the appeal was to be filed

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

condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining reasons for such delay has been filed. The relevant part of the application explaining cause of delay is reproduced as under: - “1) Computation of number of days of delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble I.T.A.T.: (a) Date of passing of impugned Order u/s 263 of the Income

M/S. AVADH HOSPITAL AND HEART CENTRE,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-6, LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

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

condone the delay and admit this appeal for hearing. 4. The brief facts of the case, for Assessment Year 2018-19, are that the assessee filed its return of income 20.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.2,49,78,200/-. The CPC, Bangalore disallowed the claim of deduction for payment of Rs.6,54,382/- under section