RAKESH RAWAT,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-4(1), , LUCKNOW

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 383 & 384/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rakesh Rawat C/O Saurabh Gupta, 50 Narain Das Building, Flat No. 9, Narhi, Lucknow Up-226001 Pan: Bcbpr4851G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

condonation of delay to place before the appellate authorities, in clear and explicit terms, all facts on which the party relies, so that the appellate authorities/court can come to the conclusion that it is not a case of want of diligence or inaction on the part of the applicant. In the instant case, admittedly, the assessee has not shown

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

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

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

condonation for delay\nin filing of Form No.10B was not furnished, but 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 and consequently necessary direction be issued to the Assessing\nOfficer to compute the income as per the mode prescribed in section

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 for delay\nin filing of Form No.10B was not furnished, but 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 and consequently necessary direction be issued to the Assessing\nOfficer to compute the income as per the mode prescribed in section

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

PURNAGIRI RICE MILLS,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHAHJAHANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.251/Lkw/2017 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purnagiri Rice Mills, V. Income Tax Officer Meeran Pur Katra, Range-1(5), Shahajhanpur-242301. Shahajhanpur-242301. Pan:Aahfp6663R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28 10 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 26 11 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing on merits. 5. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) on 24.12.2009, assessing total income at Rs.46,460/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer (AO) re- opened the assessment after obtaining

KWALITY RESTAURANT,KANPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 Kwality Restaurant V. The Cit(A) 16/97, The Mall Delhi Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaafk8712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.9.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 115 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Which Is Also Supported By An Affidavit. 3. I Have Gone Through The Application For Condonation Of Delay As Well As The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee & Heard The Contention Of The Ld. D.R. On The Issue Of Condonation Of Delay. The Ld. D.R. Has Objected To The Condonatiion Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Is Shifting The Blame Of Delay On Its Counsel. 4. Having Considered The Reasons Explained By The Assessee In The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That The Assessee Has Explained The Cause Of Delay That Due To An Oversight Of The Counsel Of The Assessee, Necessary Steps For Filing

delay of 115 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. 5. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing, however, an application for adjournment has been filed by the Authorised Representative of the assessee, which is considered and rejected, as the ground for seeking adjournment is very vague. Further, the issue raised

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

TIMECITY REAL ESTATES(INDIA) LIMTED,LUCKNOW vs. PCIT-1, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2015-2016

delay was condoned and both parties were heard. 3. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and in the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer had made certain additions and against which the assessee had filed appeal before learned CIT(A) and when the appeal of the assessee

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

In the result, appeals vide I

34) and\noffered suo-moto disallowance of administrative expenses under section 14A\nAssessing Officer on not being satisfied with working of disallowance by assessee,\ninvoked rule 8D(2)(iii) and recomputed same at higher amount It was noted that\nassessee had admittedly not furnished particulars of actual expenditure incurred by\nit for earning exempt income It was case of assessee

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

34) and\noffered suo-moto disallowance of administrative expenses under section 14A\nAssessing Officer on not being satisfied with working of disallowance by assessee,\ninvoked rule 8D(2)(iii) and recomputed same at higher amount It was noted that\nassessee had admittedly not furnished particulars of actual expenditure incurred by\nit for earning exempt income It was case of assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), KANPUR vs. SHRI RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

condone the delay in filing the appeals and preliminary objections raised by ld A.R. was also rejected and ld D.R. was asked to proceed with his arguments. 7. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has raised long term capital gain on the sale of little known penny stocks, the prices of which were manipulated with the help of certain

M/S GULATI EXTRUSIONS PVT. LTD,KANPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Gulati Extrusions Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit 17-A, Co-Operative Industrial Circle 2(1)(1) Estate Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaacg5008M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1.3.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of Five Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Director Of The Assessee Company Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Stating Therein That The Papers Required For Filing The Appeal Was Sent Through Speed Post On 27.4.2021 Well Within The Limitation Period, However The Same Was Delivered By The Postal Authorities In The Office Of The Tribunal On 5.5.2021. It Was Further Stated That Since The Nominal Delay Of Five Days Was Due To Late Delivery Of The Dak By The Postal Authorities, The Delay May Be Condoned & The Appeal Be Admitted For Hearing. Having Carefully Perused The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That There Was Sufficient Cause For The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal. Accordingly, The Delay Of 5 Days Is Condoned & Admit This Appeal For Hearing.

delay of 5 days is condoned and admit this appeal for hearing. Page 2 of 23 3. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing, however, an application for adjournment has been filed by the Authorised Representative of the assessee. At the outset, it is noticed that the issue involved in this appeal

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

condoned the delay in filing the Cross Objections and asked learned CIT, D.R. to proceed with her arguments on the Cross Objections. 4. Learned CIT, D.R. submitted that the Cross Objections are similar to the additional grounds of Revenue taken by the Revenue in the appeals no.630, Page 8 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 631 and others which

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

condoned the delay in filing the Cross Objections and asked learned CIT, D.R. to proceed with her arguments on the Cross Objections. 4. Learned CIT, D.R. submitted that the Cross Objections are similar to the additional grounds of Revenue taken by the Revenue in the appeals no.630, Page 8 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 631 and others which

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

condoned the delay in filing the Cross Objections and asked learned CIT, D.R. to proceed with her arguments on the Cross Objections. 4. Learned CIT, D.R. submitted that the Cross Objections are similar to the additional grounds of Revenue taken by the Revenue in the appeals no.630, Page 8 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 631 and others which

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

section 144B of the Act and completed the assessment at an income of Rs.2,34,00,608/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the Ld. First Appellate Authority challenging the assessment order. However, since the appeal before the NFAC had been filed belatedly and there was a delay of 256 days, the NFAC did not admit the appeal ITA No.96&97/LKW/2024

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

section 144B of the Act and completed the assessment at an income of Rs.2,34,00,608/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the Ld. First Appellate Authority challenging the assessment order. However, since the appeal before the NFAC had been filed belatedly and there was a delay of 256 days, the NFAC did not admit the appeal ITA No.96&97/LKW/2024