ARPIT KUMAR TOMAR,UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Arpit Kumar Tomar Income Tax Officer V. Flat No.B3, B21, Krishna 6(1), Lucknow, Uttar Garden, Sadarpur, Ghaziabad, Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh-201021. Pan:Ajbpt8004B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri V. Balaji, Fca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 02 2025 O R D E R

27” Amendment) Rules, 2022. (2) They shall be deemed to have come into force from tat day of April, 2022. 2 In the income-tax Rules, 1962, in rule 128, for sub-rule (9) the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely: - (9) The statement in Form No. 67 referred to in clause (i) of sub-rule

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

27,750/- and also accepted by Ld. AO. Thus, the addition of Rs.63,07,000/- being cash deposit in bank on different dates out of cash sale of country liquor is invalid. 3. The Ld. Authorities below failed to appreciate that no addition of Rs.63,07,000/- being cash deposit in bank account on different dates and utilized towards payment

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

27,750/- and also accepted by Ld. AO. Thus, the addition of Rs.63,07,000/- being cash deposit in bank on different dates out of cash sale of country liquor is invalid. 3. The Ld. Authorities below failed to appreciate that no addition of Rs.63,07,000/- being cash deposit in bank account on different dates and utilized towards payment

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

27,750/- and also accepted by Ld. AO. Thus, the addition of Rs.63,07,000/- being cash deposit in bank on different dates out of cash sale of country liquor is invalid. 3. The Ld. Authorities below failed to appreciate that no addition of Rs.63,07,000/- being cash deposit in bank account on different dates and utilized towards payment

RAJNESH KUMAR,SITAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

27,750/- and also accepted by Ld. AO. Thus, the addition of Rs.63,07,000/- being cash deposit in bank on different dates out of cash sale of country liquor is invalid. 3. The Ld. Authorities below failed to appreciate that no addition of Rs.63,07,000/- being cash deposit in bank account on different dates and utilized towards payment

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

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

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

condoning the delay of 551 days in filing of appeal owing to Covid-19 pandemic and without considering that the delay period is covered by the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo moto Writ petition No. 3/2020 and also by the CBDT Circular 10/2021 dated 25.05.2021. I.T.A. No.348/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2019-20 2 WITHOUT PREHUDICE TO ABOVE

JEDY TAPES PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals stand partly allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorin Ita No.568 & 569/Lkw/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Jedy Tapes Private Limited Dcit 16/1A. Abdul Hamid Street Cc-Ii 5Th Floor, Kolkata Lucknow West Bengal Tan/Pan:Aaacj8642E (Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Smt. Priyanka Ajit Saria, Fca Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24 03 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 05 2021 O R D E R

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 3/10/2Q16. 5. That the time for filing of the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was to expire on 2/11/2016. 6. That as per the said order, I found that a penalty of Rs.25,00,000/- has been levied for concealment of income amounting to Rs.79,31,687/-. 7. That

JEDY TAPES PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals stand partly allowed, as indicated

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorin Ita No.568 & 569/Lkw/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Jedy Tapes Private Limited Dcit 16/1A. Abdul Hamid Street Cc-Ii 5Th Floor, Kolkata Lucknow West Bengal Tan/Pan:Aaacj8642E (Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Smt. Priyanka Ajit Saria, Fca Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24 03 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 05 2021 O R D E R

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 3/10/2Q16. 5. That the time for filing of the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was to expire on 2/11/2016. 6. That as per the said order, I found that a penalty of Rs.25,00,000/- has been levied for concealment of income amounting to Rs.79,31,687/-. 7. That

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

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

27 11 2024 O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: 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

SHUBHANSHU AGARWAL,BAHRAICH vs. ITO-1, BAHRAICH

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2020-21 Shubhanshu Agarwal V. The Ito-1 C/O Shree Shyam Fertilizers Bahraich Shiv Nagar Bahraich (U/P) Tan/Pan:Bbhpa5931M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri B. P. Yadav, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

section 250 of the Act was sent on an email id “akhileshjainbahraich@gmail.com”, which did not pertain to the assessee. It was further submitted that immediately thereafter, the appeal was filed before the Tribunal with a delay of 27 days. He prayed that the delay be kindly condoned

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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR vs. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and preliminary objections raised by ld A.R. was also rejected and ld D.R. was asked to proceed with his arguments. I.T.A. No.153/Lkw/2020 Assessment. Year:2014-15 4 7. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has declared long term capital gain on the sale of little known penny stocks, the prices of which

OM PRAKASH SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(4) , LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatom Prakash Singh V. The Income Tax Officer- J-166 Opp City School 1(4), Lucknow Raibareily Road, South City Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aidps7478M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27 10 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 10 2025 O R D E R

27 10 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 19.08.2024 pertaining to the assessment year 2021-22. 2. The present appeal is barred by 63 days. The assessee has filed application