DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FAIZABAD vs. SMT. SARITA NAINWANI, PROP. M/S. BHOLA PHARMA, FAIZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2011-12 The Dy. Cit V. Smt. Sarita Nainwani Circle, Faizabad Prop. M/S Bhola Pharma 3/2/18, Mukeri Tola Faizabad Tan/Pan:Ahtpn1830B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Sarita Nainwani V. The Income Tax Officer-Ii Prop. M/S Bhola Pharma Faizabad 3/2/18, Mukeri Tola Faizabad Tan/Pan:Ahtpn1830B (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Assessee By : Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 25 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 08 2022 O R D E R

condone the delay. 4. The Revenue has raised the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,76,12,585/- ignoring the facts brought out by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has made cash payments to parties on a regular basis, thus violating the provisions

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year:2014-15 Rakesh Kumar Gupta V. The Income Tax Officer House No.51, Kaharan Ward 2(3) Nawabganj, Bareilly (U.P) Bareilly Tan/Pan:Aaupg6815 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

condonation of delay, substantial justice is paramount consideration and pivotal and that the authorities ought to follow a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non-pedantic approach. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the term 'sufficient cause' referred to in section 245

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

In the result, appeals vide I

245)\n4\nJEEVNATHPUR\n3159205\n3560606\n(401,401)\n5\nKACHWA\n4034671\n4722044\n(687,373)\nTotal\n12606771\n17925917\n(5,319,146)\n\nAs a result of computing the depreciation as per Income Tax Act, 1961, the\neligible profits of the eligible unit were thus reduced by an amount of\nRs.53,19,146/-a\n\nThe assessee was also required

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

245)\n4\nJEEVNATHPUR 3159205\n3560606\n(401,401)\n5\nKACHWA\n4034671\n4722044\n(687,373)\nTotal\n12606771\n17925917\n(5,319,146)\nAs a result of computing the depreciation as per Income Tax Act, 1961, the\neligible profits of the eligible unit were thus reduced by an amount of\nRs.53,19,146/-a\nThe assessee was also required to specify

NAVUDAI SHIKSHAN AND JAN KALYAN SEWA SAMITI,KANPUR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Navudai Shikshan & Jan Kalyan Sewa Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Samiti, 117/K/30, Sarvodaya Nagar, Tax (Exemption), Lucknow Kanpur-208005 Pan: Aagfn4916N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (Exemption), Lucknow Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 30.03.2021 Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act For The A.Y. 2016-17 On 15.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Order Passed By Cit(E) U/S 263 Of The Act Dt. 30.03.2021 Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Be Quashed. 02. Because The Order Passed By Ao, Being Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue The Action Of The Cit(E) Set-Asiding The Said Order Is Without Jurisdiction, Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, Be Quashed. 03. Because The Order Passed By The Ao Being Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue, The Cit(E) Has Erred In Law In Setting Aside The Same, The Order Passed By Cit(E) Be Quashed & That As Passed By The Ao Be Restored. 04. Because The Cit(E) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Initial Assessment Was A Deep Scrutiny Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) Wherein Voluminous Queries Were Raised Which Were Complied With & Thoroughly Examined/ Verified By The Ao, The Necessary Enquiring Having Being Done, It Is Neither A Case Of No Inquiring Or Lack Of Enquiring, As Such The Cit(E) Has Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order, The Order Passed By Cit(E) Be Quashed.

delay which requires condonation and therefore, the appeal is taken up for adjudication. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessment of the assessee was completed under section 143(3) on 15.12.2018 in the status of an AOP in which exemption under section 11 was not allowed. The society had applied for grant of registration under section

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

245)\n4\nJEEVNATHPUR\n3159205\n3560606\n(401,401)\n5\nKACHWA\n4034671\n4722044\n(687,373)\nTotal\n12606771\n17925917\n(5,319,146)\nAs a result of computing the depreciation as per Income Tax Act, 1961, the\neligible profits of the eligible unit were thus reduced by an amount of\nRs.53,19,146/-a\nThe assessee was also required to specify