M/S U.P HINDI SANSTHAN,LUCKNOW vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. U.P. Hindi Sansthan. Commissioner Of Income V. 6, Hindi Sansthan, Mg Road, Tax (Exemptions) Hazratganj, Lucknow-226001. T.C. 46V, 5Th Floor, Upsidc Ltd, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aaaau1297Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S. U.P. Hindi Sansthan. Tax (Exemptions) 6, Hindi Sansthan, Mg T.C. 46V, 5Th Floor, Upsidc Ltd, Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow- Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, 226001. Lucknow-226010. Pan:Aaaju0103A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Hariom Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 11 2024 O R D E R

delay condoned from appropriate authority. Till that no such decision on both point has been received from assessee in this office. As the assessment is getting barred by limitation there is no other option left but to charge this amount to tax. 5. During the examination of written reply as well as online data submitted by assessee, it is found

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

condone the delay in filing of appeal before us and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of finished leather and sale of license. The assessee company had filed its Page 9 of 24 return of income

M/S BENARA BEARING PVT.LTD,AGRA vs. DCIT-CC-1, KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. : B.P. 1996-97 To 2002-03 M/S Benara Bearings Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income- 44/347, Bharatpur Road, Vs. Tax, Central Circle-1, Kanpur Bodla, Agra-282007 U.P. Pan:Aabcb5525F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, Advcoate Revenue By: Sh. Gayasuddin, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21.09.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

22,00,000/- declared as per return of income- Rs.22,00,000/-. (ii) Unexplained and unproved cash credit of Rs. 20,00,000/- in the names of M/s Meenakshi Construction, Shri Mahesh Chandra Agarwal & Shri K. Anil Kumar Agarwal respectively. (iii) Undisclosed loose papers as per Annexure-C of Rs. 4,08,21,897/- (iv) Unexplained investment in land

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

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

condone such delay as per section\n119(2)(b)\".\n6. 27. Since the appellant has not furnished any order passed by CIT(Exemption)\ncondoning the delay in filing of Form 10B, the AO has rightly denied the exemption\nclaimed u/s.11 of the Act and therefore, it does not warrant any interference.\nAppellant's Ground Nos.2 to 11 are partly allowed

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)

condone such delay as per section\n119(2)(b)\".\n\n6. 27. Since the appellant has not furnished any order passed by CIT(Exemption)\ncondoning the delay in filing of Form 10B, the AO has rightly denied the exemption\nclaimed u/s.11 of the Act and therefore, it does not warrant any interference.\nAppellant's Ground Nos.2 to 11 are partly

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNIAN, LTD. ,LAKHIPUR KHERI vs. ITO WARD-3(4), LAKHIPUR-1

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 80AC(ii) of the Act. The CPC as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have clearly erred in disallowing assessee’s claim u/s 80P of the Act on the ground that the assessee’s return of income was filed belatedly. Therefore, we set aside the impugned appellate order dated 07/02/2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), and we direct

SHASHI INFRA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ITO, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Shashi Infra V. The Constructions Pvt Ltd Addl/Joint/Deputy/Asstt/Income 328B, 5Th Lane Rajendra Tax Officer, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226004. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Tan/Pan:Aaucs5802M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merits. (B) In this case, the assessment order dated 23.03.2022 was passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Income Page 3 of 22

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

delay was 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

M/S K.N.S. EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

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

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

22 days. The assessee filed a condonation petition alongwith an affidavit in which it was submitted that the taxation matters of the company were handled by C.A. Sandeep Tandon, who was suffering from acute neuro problem and had also suffered severe injury multiple fractures in his right hand. Due to his aforesaid medical 2 M/s K.N.S. Exports

ALL INDIA MINORITIES WELFARE SOCEITY,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 All India Minorities V. The Income Tax Officer Welfare Society (Exemption) 4-A, La Palace, Shahnajaf Lucknow Road Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aacta4540P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R

22 days was not intentional and, therefore, the delay be condoned and the appeal be admitted for hearing on merits. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. D.R. opposed the condonation of delay. 5. In view of the prayer made by the Ld. A.R., I condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing

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

delay was 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

SANJAY KUMAR,NIGHASAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (NFAC), AO ASSESSMENT UNIT(NFAC), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2018-19 Sanjay Kumar V. The Ito (Nfac) 230, Khairi Garh Assessment Unit Nighasan New Delhi Kheri Pan:Fsmpk7383H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Kumar (Assessee) Respondent By: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26 06 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 06 2024 O R D E R

delay of 107 days was not condoned by Ld. CIT(A) even after having valid concrete grounds based on genuine hardship of the assessee which have been produced before the competent authority. ITA No.135/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 4 (2) As the facts of the case are still unheard to the appellate authority and the department has imposed huge demand

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

UDAAN SEWA SAMITI,KANPUR NAGAR vs. CPC BANGLORE, KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Udaan Seva Samiti V. The Cpc 250/4, Juhi Lal Colony Bangalore Kanpur Nagar Uttar Pradesh Tan/Pan:Aaaau7543F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.11.2023, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Mumbai For Assessment Year 2019-20. 3.1 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Society Registered Under Section 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). The Assessee-Society Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Under Section 139(1) On 26.01.2021, Declaring Total Income At Nil. The Assessee-Society Had Claimed Exemption Of Rs.12,97,442/- Relating To The Amount Applied For Charitable & Religious Purposes During The Previous Year. The Central Processing Centre (Cpc) Processed The Return Under Section 143(1) Of The Act

condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 6.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that the assessee-society is registered under section 12A of the Act and in this case, Form 10B was filed belatedly by the assessee although the original Audit Report in Form 10B had been filed

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION ,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

condoned the delay and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his argument. 4. Since a common issue relating to levy of fees u/s. 234E of the Act is involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Notice in this case was sent to the assessee. Common grounds involved

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

condoned the delay and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his argument. 4. Since a common issue relating to levy of fees u/s. 234E of the Act is involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Notice in this case was sent to the assessee. Common grounds involved

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

condoned the delay and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his argument. 4. Since a common issue relating to levy of fees u/s. 234E of the Act is involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Notice in this case was sent to the assessee. Common grounds involved

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

condoned the delay and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his argument. 4. Since a common issue relating to levy of fees u/s. 234E of the Act is involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Notice in this case was sent to the assessee. Common grounds involved

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

condoned the delay and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his argument. 4. Since a common issue relating to levy of fees u/s. 234E of the Act is involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Notice in this case was sent to the assessee. Common grounds involved