VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW.

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

201(1) of the Income tax Act, being Rs.31,98,814/- in all totaling Rs.1,08,15.040/ - wholly on notions. conjectures and surmises. 2. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee as the Ld. Assessing Officer was not at all justified in raising the demand of Rs.76,16,225/- and Rs.31

FUTURE MONEY SALES AND MARKETING PVT.LTD, A-28,NEAR BANKEY BIHARI TAMPEL RAJENDRA NAGER, BAREILLY-243001,,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(2),BAREILLY-NEW., BAREILLY-NEW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriafuture Money Sales & Income Tax Officer-1(2) V. Marketing Pvt. Ltd Rampur Garden, Bareilly- A-28, Near Bankey Bihari New-243001. Tample, Rajendra Nagar, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aabcf4395H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 10 2024 O R D E R

condone the delay of appeal u/s 249(3) of the Act. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the assessee’s appeal and dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine, as not admitted, on the ground of limitation. The relevant portion of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: - “2.1 The present appeal was filed

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

condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal, the present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.” (A.1) In the aforesaid appellate order, the learned CIT(A) observed that the appellant had not made any submissions for justifying substantial delay in filing of the appeal. The relevant discussion is at paragraphs 4 to 4.6 of the aforesaid order of learned

THE DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the issue of limitation for passing orders under section 206C(6A) needed to be decided as a preliminary issue. The Tribunal noted that while previous ITAT decisions applied a 4-year limitation based on Section 201

SANT HARAJINDAR SINGH,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERITO-2(4), PILIBHIT-1, PILIBHIT

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrasant Harajindar Singh V. Income Tax Officer-2(4), Trilok Singh Santpipariya Pilibhit-1 Karam Puranpur, Pilibhit, Uttar Income Tax Office, Near Pradesh-262122. Lic Office, Awas Vikas Colony, Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh-262001. Pan:Dlmps4218F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 07 08 2025 O R D E R

condone delay in filing of appeal by 251 days in View of following further discussion. 8.1.1 The appeal is dismissed in limine as it is not just and proper at this stage to raise the issue after a gap of 251 days. It is for general welfare that a period be put on litigation. Further, it is a general principle

STETE BANK OF INDIA, SMECCC CODE-5030,KANPUR vs. ITO (TDS)-, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 201 and 201(1A) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. 8. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other.” 2. The appeals filed by the assessee are beyond the time limit prescribed

STATE BANK OF INDIA, SMECCC-CODE-5030,KANPUR vs. ITO(TDS)-2, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 201 and 201(1A) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. 8. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other.” 2. The appeals filed by the assessee are beyond the time limit prescribed

JAMUNA DEVI NARESH CHANDRA MAHAVIDYALAYA,JALAUN vs. ITO-TDS, KANPUR

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

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

delay in the filing of the appeal be condoned and the appeal may be adjudicated on the basis of the grounds on which relief had been sought. After considering the matter, in the interest of justice, the appeal is admitted and taken up for hearing. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed TDS return

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. SAHARA INDIA MUTUAL BENIFIT CORP. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee/respondent are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.683/लखनऊ /2000 (िन.व. 1996-97) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Central Circle-I, Lucknow बनाम Vs. Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd., 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Up ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan/Gir No. 111-S/Cc-I/Lko Co No. 10/Lkw/2004 (A.Y. 1996-97) In Ita No. 683/Lkw/2000 Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd., (Since Amalgamated With Sahara India Commercial Corpn. Ltd.) 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Up ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan/Gir No. 111-S/Cc-I/Lko बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Central Circle-I, Lucknow आअसं.684/ लखनऊ/2000 (िन.व. 1996-97) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Central Circle-1, New Delhi बनाम Vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (Earlier Sahara India Mutal Benefit Ltd.) 2A Sahara India Sadan, Sakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aadcs-6118-F

201(1A) of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Department is in appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Lucknow [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 24.03.2000. The assessee has filed Cross Objections in appeal by the Department. 1.1. The appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 684/LKW/2000

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. SAHARA INDIA MUTUAL BENIFIT CORP. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee/respondent are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.683/लखनऊ /2000 (िन.व. 1996-97) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Central Circle-I, Lucknow बनाम Vs. Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd., 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Up ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan/Gir No. 111-S/Cc-I/Lko Co No. 10/Lkw/2004 (A.Y. 1996-97) In Ita No. 683/Lkw/2000 Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd., (Since Amalgamated With Sahara India Commercial Corpn. Ltd.) 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Up ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan/Gir No. 111-S/Cc-I/Lko बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Central Circle-I, Lucknow आअसं.684/ लखनऊ/2000 (िन.व. 1996-97) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Central Circle-1, New Delhi बनाम Vs. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (Earlier Sahara India Mutal Benefit Ltd.) 2A Sahara India Sadan, Sakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aadcs-6118-F

201(1A) of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Department is in appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Lucknow [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 24.03.2000. The assessee has filed Cross Objections in appeal by the Department. 1.1. The appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 684/LKW/2000