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

2 The appeal vide ITA. No.727/LKW/2019 for AY. 2016-17 has been filed by the assessee beyond time limit prescribed under section 254(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit

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

section 253(3) of IT Act. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned. Being satisfied with the reasons stated in application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal; we condone the delay in filing

M/S CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1, RANGE-3(4), LAKHIMPUR KHERI

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

220/-. 2. That the Authorities erred on facts and in law in not considering that only the real income/ profit can be Taxed and accordingly, the expenses incurred in ITA No.37/LKW/2022, ITA No.15/Lkw/2023 & ITA No.394/ Lkw/2019 M/s Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd. earning the said income has to be determined and deducted from the Gross Income. 3. The Ld. C.I.T

M/S CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION GOLA,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE-3(4), LAKHIMPUR KHERI-1

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

220/-. 2. That the Authorities erred on facts and in law in not considering that only the real income/ profit can be Taxed and accordingly, the expenses incurred in ITA No.37/LKW/2022, ITA No.15/Lkw/2023 & ITA No.394/ Lkw/2019 M/s Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd. earning the said income has to be determined and deducted from the Gross Income. 3. The Ld. C.I.T

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)

2)(C), the appeal was to be presented within 30 days after its service. However, in the present case, the appeal had been filed beyond time limit with a delay of more than six years. Reproducing the provisions of section 249 in his order and relying upon the decision in the case of Senior Bhosale Estate(Huf) vs. ACIT (Civil

M/S CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,LAKHIMPUR-KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-I, LAKHIMPUR -KHERI

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

220/-.\n2. That the Authorities erred on facts and in law in not considering that only the\nreal income/ profit can be Taxed and accordingly, the expenses incurred in\nearning the said income has to be determined and deducted from the Gross\nIncome.\n3. The Ld. C.I.T.(A) erred on facts and in law in not considering that the society

SUNIL KUMAR SINHA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-1(4), LUCKNOW -NEW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Sunil Kumar Sinha V. The Ito-1(4) A-23, Vishnupuri Colony Lucknow - New Nahar Road, Near Shukla Chauraha Jankipuram, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Adpps6761A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Smt. Neelam Diman, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

220/-. The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore processed the return under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) Act, determining the total income of ITA No.274/LKW/2025 Page 2 of 4 the assessee as declared by the assessee. Subsequently, the assessee came to know, from other employees who had taken retirement under VRS from

NARENDRA SINGH SHAKYA,BUDAUN vs. ITO-2(3), BADAUN-1

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

2 The learned Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing, and in specific facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing

MARYA DAY AGRO FOODS PVT.LTD.,BAREILLY vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

2 Rs.1,60,34,220/- was accepted by the Assessing Officer in the aforesaid assessment order, and no addition/disallowance was made. The assessment order was revised by learned Pr.CIT by way of impugned order dated 25/03/2022 passed u/s 263 of the I. T. Act. In the aforesaid impugned order of Pr.CIT, the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer