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

226, should consider delay or laches and, refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if it is found that the applicant had neglected/omitted to assert its rights in a timely manner; however, this discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably. 6.10 In a recent judgment in the case of University of Delhi vs Union of India & Ors, in civil appeal

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

delay in filing of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is admitted for hearing, on merits. (B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the assessee’s side: 15 17 19 21 (B.1) Further, a consolidated synopsis, common for all the appeals

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

delay in filing of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is admitted for hearing, on merits. (B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the assessee’s side: 15 17 19 21 (B.1) Further, a consolidated synopsis, common for all the appeals

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

delay in filing of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is admitted for hearing, on merits. (B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the assessee’s side: 15 17 19 21 (B.1) Further, a consolidated synopsis, common for all the appeals

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

condone the delay. Therefore, the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The facts of the case are that a survey under section 133A was conducted at the office premises of the Director of the Geology and Mining at Khaniz Bhawan in Lucknow on 4.03.2015. During the said survey, it was discovered that lease or licenses or contracts for mining

TIRLOCHAN SINGH,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), PILIBHIT

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Tirlochan Singh V. The Income Tax Officer Post Kadher Choura Ward 2(5) Rampur Kone, Puranpur Pilibhit Pilibhit Tan/Pan:Damps7604M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 12 2024 O R D E R

226) as unexplained income of the assessee under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The AO, accordingly, completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.10,05,460/-. 3. The AO also initiated

M/S PRAMOD TELECOM PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, in ITA. No

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

condoned. 3. We have duly considered the facts submitted and after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. M/s Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2020-21 MST. Katiji & Ors 167 ITR 471 (SC), the appeals are admitted for hearing on their merits. 4. As the grounds

M/S PRAMOD TELECOM PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, in ITA. No

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

condoned. 3. We have duly considered the facts submitted and after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. M/s Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2020-21 MST. Katiji & Ors 167 ITR 471 (SC), the appeals are admitted for hearing on their merits. 4. As the grounds

KAMLESH ,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE -4(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

226 of the Act for bank account attachment. In the light of aforesaid facts, assessment order was passed without providing an opportunity, against the law of natural justice and without jurisdiction. 3. That appellant was engaged in trading of readymade garments, hence addition in total income, if any, should have been made the head "Income from Business and Profession

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

In the result, appeals vide I

226 ITR 625 (SC).\nDealing with the above amendment brought in by Finance Act, 1987, stated to be\neffective from 1 April, 1988, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:\n\n\"....We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the amendment\nintroduced by the Finance Bill, 1988 was declaratory/clarificatory in\nnature so far as it relates to Section

SUSHEEL KUMAR SHARMA,DALIGANJ, LUCKNOW vs. ITO-4(4), LUCKNOW-NEW, HAZRATGANJ, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

226/- made u/s 44AD of the Act, the learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to make further verification, thereby restoring the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. (C) At the time of hearing on 17/12/2024, there was no representation from the assessee’s side. On earlier occasions, this appeal was fixed for I.T.A. No.250/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

226 ITR 625 (SC). Dealing with the above amendment brought in by Finance Act, 1987, stated to be effective from 1 April, 1988, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "....We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the amendment introduced by the Finance Bill, 1988 was declaratory/clarificatory in nature so far as it relates to Section 27(iii), (iiia