FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

condoned the same and proceeded the case/s on merits. 3. Since the facts and solitary issue involved in this bunch of appeals are identical, on no objection from the Revenue, for the sake of brevity these appeals are heard together for a common and consolidated order. 4. Briefly stated the facts culled out of case records are that

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

condoned the same and proceeded the case/s on merits. 3. Since the facts and solitary issue involved in this bunch of appeals are identical, on no objection from the Revenue, for the sake of brevity these appeals are heard together for a common and consolidated order. 4. Briefly stated the facts culled out of case records are that

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

condoned the same and proceeded the case/s on merits. 3. Since the facts and solitary issue involved in this bunch of appeals are identical, on no objection from the Revenue, for the sake of brevity these appeals are heard together for a common and consolidated order. 4. Briefly stated the facts culled out of case records are that

WSG VENTURE PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. DCT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2022-23 Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, 1-59, Mig, Word Bank Barra, Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur Kanpur-208027 Pan:Aaccw7342L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit-1, Kanpur Passed Under Section 119 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 5.12.2024 Refusing To Condone The Delay In Filing The Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2022-23 With The Claimed Refund Of Rs. 10,000/-. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. That Due To Mistake Of Counsel, The Itr For The Ay 2022-23 Could Not Be Filed Of The Assessee Company, Whereas The Certificate Of The Counsel Was Also Filed, But Ignore The Same & Rejected The Petition Moved U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Act, Which Action Of The Pr. Cit Is Contrary To Fact & Be Quashed. 02. That The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit U/S.119 Of The Income Tax Act Reject The Petition For Condonation Of Delay Moved U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Act Is Not Lawful, Bad In Law, Be Quashed. 03. That The Pr. Cit As Well As Cpc Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Arbitrarily Rejecting The Petition Of The Assessee Company To Rectify The Return Of Income, Which Should Ought To Have Done. A.Y. 2022-23 Wsg Venture Pvt. Ltd. 04. That The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit U/S 119 Dated 05.12.2024 Is Erroneous, Misconceived, Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law & Be Modified.”

condonation of delay moved u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act is not lawful, bad in law, be quashed. 03. THAT the Pr. CIT as well as CPC has erred on facts and in law in arbitrarily rejecting the petition of the assessee company to rectify the return of income, which should ought to have done. A.Y. 2022-23 WSG Venture

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

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

condoned the delay and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his argument. 4. Since a common issue relating to levy of fees u/s. 234E of the Act is involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Notice in this case was sent to the assessee. Common grounds involved

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

condoned the delay and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his argument. 4. Since a common issue relating to levy of fees u/s. 234E of the Act is involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Notice in this case was sent to the assessee. Common grounds involved

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

condoned the delay and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his argument. 4. Since a common issue relating to levy of fees u/s. 234E of the Act is involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Notice in this case was sent to the assessee. Common grounds involved

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION ,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

condoned the delay and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his argument. 4. Since a common issue relating to levy of fees u/s. 234E of the Act is involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Notice in this case was sent to the assessee. Common grounds involved

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

condoned the delay and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his argument. 4. Since a common issue relating to levy of fees u/s. 234E of the Act is involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Notice in this case was sent to the assessee. Common grounds involved

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

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, by raising

WAQF DARGAH RAJJAB SALAR,BAHRAICH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, BAHRAICH

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Waqf Dargah Rajjab Salar Vs. Ito-1 C/O Kazi Faizur Rehman Bahraich - New C-90, Sector M Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaaaw7179H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 02 2025 O R D E R

C-90, Sector M Aliganj, Lucknow TAN/PAN:AAAAW7179H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date of hearing: 20 02 2025 Date of pronouncement: 24 02 2025 O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 25.11.2024, passed