SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH ,HARDOI vs. ITO-3(2),HARDOI-1, HARDOI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrait(Ss) A. Nos. 795 To 798/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shailendra Kumar Singh Ito-3(2) V. Subhan Khera Sandila, Hardoi- Hardoi-1 241305. Uttar Pradesh-241305. Pan:Cvqps4275L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By: Shri Naeem Khan, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

condonation of delay. This would have permitted the appeal to be evaluated based on its substantive merits. 2. The Total Income reported amounts to Rs. 3,84,520.00. However, the assessment was conducted at a substantially inflated figure of Rs. 1,11,14,956.00, along with penalty u/s 271AAC(1) This discrepancy arises from specific additions and disallowances along with

DILEEP KUMAR OJHA,SITAPUR vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sudhhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

270A of the Act were dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide separate impugned appellate orders. The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing of the aforesaid appeals beyond the time limit prescribed under section 249(3) of the Act; and the assessee’s aforesaid appeals were dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) on grounds of limitation

UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

condonation of delay in\nfiling of Form No.10B was not furnished, and the respective finding of both the lower\nauthorities being factually incorrect, the assessee's claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act\ndeserves to be accepted.\n8\nBECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without\nprejudice to each other.\n9.\nBECAUSE the order appealed against

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)

condonation of delay in\nfiling of Form No.10B was not furnished, and the respective finding of both the lower\nauthorities being factually incorrect, the assessee's claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act\ndeserves to be accepted.\n\n8 BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without\nprejudice to each other.\n\n9. BECAUSE the order

NOMAN HUSSAIN,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-3(2), HARDOI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condoning the delay. 4. Similarly, in the penalty proceedings, the AO had imposed penalty of Rs.1,61,86,626/- under section 270A(9

NOMAN HUSAIN,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-3(2), HARDOI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condoning the delay. 4. Similarly, in the penalty proceedings, the AO had imposed penalty of Rs.1,61,86,626/- under section 270A(9

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

270A of the Act. 7. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 8. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 9. The "appellant" craves leave, to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before hearing of appeal. ITA Nos.271 to 273/LKW/2024 Page

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. J/DCIT-CC,, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

270A of the Act. 7. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 8. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 9. The "appellant" craves leave, to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before hearing of appeal. ITA Nos.271 to 273/LKW/2024 Page

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

270A of the Act. 7. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice. 8. BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 9. The "appellant" craves leave, to add, delete or modify any of the grounds before hearing of appeal. ITA Nos.271 to 273/LKW/2024 Page

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARABANKI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal V. The Income Tax Officer – 5(5) Sumerganj Dharauli Ram Barabanki - 2 Sanehi Ghat Barabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ajnpj8871G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

270A, 271AAC, 271F and 272A(1)(d) of the Act, separately. 4. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 5. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-11, Delhi, by raising the following grounds

SIDDHARTH SINGH,BAREILLY vs. ITO-1(1), BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Siddharth Singh V. The Ito 1(1) 43/S-3, Greater Green Park Bareilly Bareilly Tan/Pan:Frhps5158G (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

section 270A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The appeal was migrated to the Ld. NFAC, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. 5. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal

M.K. WOOD TRADING CORPORATION,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 M. K. Wood Trading Corporation V. The Dcit/Acit-1 10, Basha Khera Lucknow New Takrohi, Indira Nagar Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aarfm2443G (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.08.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Timber Products. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 10.12.2020 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.54,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment And, Accordingly, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee. The Ao Finally Issued Show Cause Notice Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) Dated 21.3.2022, Vide Which The Ao

270A and 271AAC of the Act, separately. 2.6 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 2.7 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the orders of the AO as well as the NFAC, by raising the following grounds

DINESH KUMAR GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Dinesh Kumar Gupta V. Ito-2(1) 69/192, Chitvapur Lucknow Station Road, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Akcpg5937A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 01 2025 O R D E R

sections 271AAC, 270A and 271F of the Act separately. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The appeal was migrated to NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of its appeal

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. D.C.I.T. RANGE-6 (JAO), LUCKNOW

In the result, ita No.164/LKW/2022 stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

270A and 271B of the Act, separately. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority against the addition of Rs.33,49,65,000/- being interest on FDRs, disallowance of Rs.66,44,641/- being prior period expenses and non-allowance of credit for TDS. The NFAC deleted the addition made by the AO of Rs.33

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT,RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, ita No.164/LKW/2022 stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

270A and 271B of the Act, separately. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority against the addition of Rs.33,49,65,000/- being interest on FDRs, disallowance of Rs.66,44,641/- being prior period expenses and non-allowance of credit for TDS. The NFAC deleted the addition made by the AO of Rs.33

MOHAMMAD AHMAD,BASTI vs. ITO, BASTI

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Mohammad Ahamad V. The Income Tax Officer Prop. M/S Royal Associates Basti Pancparia Road Gandhi Nagar, Basti Tan/Pan:Awmpa3926F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 14 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 11 2024 O R D E R

sections 270A, 272A(1)(d) and 271F of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before 4. the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The appeal was migrated to NFAC, who estimated the profit margin @4% as against 8% estimated by the AO, by holding that the profit margin of 8% taken by the AO seemed to be on the higher

RAM RATAN SINGH PAL,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Ram Ratan Singh Pal V. The Assessment Unit 5C/111, Girdhar Kunj Nfac Sector 5, Vrindavan Colony Telibagh, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ahqpp7018N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.01.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 15.01.2021, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.2,81,520/- Under The Head Income From Salary. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & A Refund Of Rs.2,50,510/- Was Created. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income Under Section 139(5) Of The Act On 25.02.2021, Declaring The Same Income Originally Returned, I.E., Rs.2,81,520/-. In The Revised Return Of Income, The Assessee Declared Income From Salary At Rs.2,81,520/- & Income From

270A of the Act may not be initiated for under-reporting of income. In response, the assessee filed reply vide two letters dated 26.07.2022. Not being satisfied with the reply furnished by the assessee in response to the show cause notice, the AO proceeded to complete the assessment under section 144 of the Act and worked out the income

ANOOP KUMAR GUPTA,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4), BARABANKI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Anoop Kumar Gupta V. The Income Tax Officer Patel Nagar Ward 5(4) Fatehpur, Barabanki Barabanki-1 Tan/Pan:Ahtpg8238Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 14 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 05 2025 O R D E R

270A of the Act, separately. ITA No.212/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 6 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. The NFAC partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the orders of the AO as well as the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD VIKRAMJOT BASTI,VIKRAMJOT vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER BASTI -NEW, INCOME TAX OFFICE BASTI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sahkari Ganna Vikas V. The Income Tax Officer Samiti Ltd. Basti Vikramjot, Basti (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aabas4611B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.12.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912. The Main Activity Of The Assessee Was Marketing Of Sugar Cane Grown By The Cane Growers, Who Were Members Of The Assessee-Society. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 21.03.2018, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,73,170/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee-Society Had Received Commission From Sugar Mills On Supply Of Sugar Cane Of Rs.70,16,032/-, Which Was Claimed As Exempt In Terms Of Section 80P(2)(A)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act

270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. ITA No.486/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 15 2.3 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)_3, Bengaluru