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

1. That the Ld. CIT(Exemptions), Lucknow, has erred in law and on facts of the case in rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing Form No. ‘10’ relating to accumulation of fund, without specifying any cogent reason. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Exemptions), Lucknow has erred in law and in fact of the case in rejecting

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

condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merits. I.T.A. No.649/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 2 (C) In this case, the assessment order dated 01.12.2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”), u/s 143(3) of the Act whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.1,77,68,734/- as against

DIVESH KUMAR,BAREILLY vs. ACIT CENTRAL, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Divesh Kumar Shri Kharak Singh V. Rawat, 19, Shishgarh, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh-243105. Dc/Acit-Cent, Bareilly Office Of The Acit, Central Circle Dc/Acit Cent Bareilly-1-243001 Pan:Cfdpk1712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 19 11 2024

1).” 8.4 On perusal of provision of section 115BBE“t's noted that if addition of income has been made in terms of provision of section-68, 69A, 69B, 89C & 69D then taxes has to be charged in this section. Since in this case addition of Rs. 2,66,000/- has been-made u/s 69A of the Act, therefore

ASHOK KUMAR RAJA,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(4),, PILIBHIT

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraashok Kumar Raja V. Ito-2(4) Awas Vikas Colony, Pilibhit- Pilibhit, U.P. 262001. Pan:Alppr2326G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms Shweta Mittal, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27 11 2024 O R D E R

1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”], Bareilly u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) dated 14/03/2019 for the assessment year 2009-10 wherein, the assessee’s appeal has been dismissed in limine

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 Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.5

VIMLESH KUMAR,RAEBARELI vs. ITO, RAEBARELI

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivatava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vimlesh Kumar Income Tax Officer V. Village & Post Thulendi, Income Tax Building, Jail Bachhrawan, Raebareli- Road, Raebareli-229001. 229301. Pan:Blbpk4834R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 11 2024 O R D E R

1 The Learned Income Tax Officer failed to appreciates the full and circumstances of the case while completing the assessment Rs.1,08,50,403/- against the returned income of Rs.Nil. 2. That the learned assessing officer erred in not providing reasonable and proper opportunity before completing the assessment. 3. Because the learned officer National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi erred both

KUMAR TALKIES,BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BAREILLY-NEW, BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrakumar Talkies V. Income Tax Officer-1(1) Punjabi Market, Hospital Road, Fashion Point, 56, Civil Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Lines Near Prasad Cinema, Bareily-243001. Pan:Aaafk0045M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

1)(c) of the Act are not attracted. 10. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 11. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 12. The "appellant" craves leave to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before or at the time

M/S. BAL KALYAN SAMITI SARASWATI VIDHYA MANDIR INTER COLLEGE,RAMPUR vs. CIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.- N.A. M/S Bal Kalyan Samiti, Saraswati Cit (Exemption), Vidhya Mandir Inter College, Near Vs. Lucknow Mandi Samiti, Milak, Rampur, 244921, U.P. Pan:Aacab8257F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(Exemption), Rejecting The Application Of The Assessee Under Section 10(23C)(Vi). The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

1 M/s Bal Kalyan Samiti Saraswati Vidhya Mandir Inter College 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal at any time.” 2. It is observed that the appeal is late by 33 days. In this regard, an application for condonation of delay was presented by the Manager of the Bal Kalyan

ANIL KUMAR,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. ITO-1(4), SHAHJAHANPUR, SHAHJAHANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. The appeal has been filed by the assessee beyond time limit (B) prescribed under section 254(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). As per noting of Registry, this appeal is time barred by one day. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay

PRASHANT,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(3), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraprashant, V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3) 2-B, Wazidpur, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010. Aaykar Bhawan, 16/69, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Admpk9965F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 12 2024 O R D E R

1. That the Id.AO has erred in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without forming reason to believe as to escapement of income from tax u/s 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the Ld. AO has erred in completing reassessment without issuance and service of notice under section 148 of the Income

HAFIZ ABDUL HAKEEM MEMORIAL TRUST,BIJNOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. The appeal has been filed by the assessee beyond time limit (B) prescribed under section 254(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”). As per noting of Registry, this appeal is time barred by one day. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay

SHAFI AHAMED,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CC-1, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2021-22 Shafi Ahamed V. The Acit 133/194 ‘O’ Block Central Circle 1 Sabzi Mandi Kanpur Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Alhpa0988P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R

254/- from the estimated commission of Rs.39,37,64/-, which came to Rs.27,66,386/-, added the same to the income of the assessee. 2.3 The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, computing the income of the assessee as under: Income declared by the assessee : Rs.5,32,960/- Addition of cash seized : Rs.12

MANOJ DWIVEDI,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-3(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Manoj Dwivedi V. Ito-3(2) 254, Chandralok Lucknow - New Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Afgpd1753C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12 02 2025 O R D E R

254, Chandralok Lucknow - New Aliganj, Lucknow TAN/PAN:AFGPD1753C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date of hearing: 10 02 2025 Date of pronouncement: 12 02 2025 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 28.11.2024, passed by the National

SAHARA INDIA MUTUAL BENEFIT CO.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

254 of the Act. 3-4 41/Lkw/20 DCIT, Central M/s. Sahara India CIT(A)-III, Lucknow’s 29.03.2001 02 with C.O. Circler-I, Commercial order dated framed by No.24/Lkw/ Lucknow Corporation Ltd. 30.10.2001 passed in DCIT, Central 2005 for AY: case no. 85/44/CC- Circle-I, 1994-95 I/LKO/2001-02 Lucknow involving proceedings under Section 144/251 of the Act. 5-6 705/Lkw/2

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - I, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. SAHARA INDIA MUTUAL BENEFIT CO. LTD., LUCKNOW

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

254 of the Act. 3-4 41/Lkw/20 DCIT, Central M/s. Sahara India CIT(A)-III, Lucknow’s 29.03.2001 02 with C.O. Circler-I, Commercial order dated framed by No.24/Lkw/ Lucknow Corporation Ltd. 30.10.2001 passed in DCIT, Central 2005 for AY: case no. 85/44/CC- Circle-I, 1994-95 I/LKO/2001-02 Lucknow involving proceedings under Section 144/251 of the Act. 5-6 705/Lkw/2

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - I, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. SAHARA INDIA MUTUAL BENEFIT CO. LTD., LUCKNOW

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

254 of the Act. 3-4 41/Lkw/20 DCIT, Central M/s. Sahara India CIT(A)-III, Lucknow’s 29.03.2001 02 with C.O. Circler-I, Commercial order dated framed by No.24/Lkw/ Lucknow Corporation Ltd. 30.10.2001 passed in DCIT, Central 2005 for AY: case no. 85/44/CC- Circle-I, 1994-95 I/LKO/2001-02 Lucknow involving proceedings under Section 144/251 of the Act. 5-6 705/Lkw/2

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - I, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. SAHARA INDIA MUTUAL BENEFIT CO. LTD., LUCKNOW

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

254 of the Act. 3-4 41/Lkw/20 DCIT, Central M/s. Sahara India CIT(A)-III, Lucknow’s 29.03.2001 02 with C.O. Circler-I, Commercial order dated framed by No.24/Lkw/ Lucknow Corporation Ltd. 30.10.2001 passed in DCIT, Central 2005 for AY: case no. 85/44/CC- Circle-I, 1994-95 I/LKO/2001-02 Lucknow involving proceedings under Section 144/251 of the Act. 5-6 705/Lkw/2

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - I, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. SAHARA INDIA MUTUAL BENEFIT CO. LTD., LUCKNOW

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

254 of the Act. 3-4 41/Lkw/20 DCIT, Central M/s. Sahara India CIT(A)-III, Lucknow’s 29.03.2001 02 with C.O. Circler-I, Commercial order dated framed by No.24/Lkw/ Lucknow Corporation Ltd. 30.10.2001 passed in DCIT, Central 2005 for AY: case no. 85/44/CC- Circle-I, 1994-95 I/LKO/2001-02 Lucknow involving proceedings under Section 144/251 of the Act. 5-6 705/Lkw/2

BHARTIYA JAN SEWA ASHRAM,JAUNPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1) the Id.“CIT(A)” has erred in law and on facts, in concurring with the Assessing\nOfficer, on the issues connected with\n(i) registration under section 12A and “appellants” claim for being\nassessed under section 11 of the Act;\n(ii) disallowance of various grants for sums aggregating to\nRs.97,11,058/ as had been given by IMPACT