ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-1, LUCKNOW, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW vs. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., VIBHUTI KHAND GOMTI NAGAR LKO

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

5) cannot be pressed into service for reading a limitation of the deduction under sub-section (1) only to ‘business income’. An attempt was made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue to rely on the phrase ‘derived … from’ in Section 80-IA (1) of the Act in respect of his submission that the intention of the legislature

ABHAY CHARAN TEACHING INSTITUTE OF VEDIC EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

45 days. Condonation application has been filed in respect of the delay in which it was submitted that the assessee received information on 31.12.2024 regarding the passing of the said orders through SMS on his mobile. The Director, thereafter contacted the present counsel in January, 2025 to get the appeal drafted. After drafting said appeal, the learned counsel sent

ABHAY CHARAN TEACHING INSTITUTE OF VEDIC EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

45 days. Condonation application has been filed in respect of the delay in which it was submitted that the assessee received information on 31.12.2024 regarding the passing of the said orders through SMS on his mobile. The Director, thereafter contacted the present counsel in January, 2025 to get the appeal drafted. After drafting said appeal, the learned counsel sent

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

5 of 10 8. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the materials available on records. It is seen that the assessee had disclosed a total turnover of Rs.75,10,075/- and declared profit by applying the provisions of Section 44AD of the Act @ 8% amounting to Rs.6,00,807/-. The Assessing Authority in para

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

5 of 10 8. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the materials available on records. It is seen that the assessee had disclosed a total turnover of Rs.75,10,075/- and declared profit by applying the provisions of Section 44AD of the Act @ 8% amounting to Rs.6,00,807/-. The Assessing Authority in para

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

5 of 10 8. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the materials available on records. It is seen that the assessee had disclosed a total turnover of Rs.75,10,075/- and declared profit by applying the provisions of Section 44AD of the Act @ 8% amounting to Rs.6,00,807/-. The Assessing Authority in para

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

5 of 10 8. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the materials available on records. It is seen that the assessee had disclosed a total turnover of Rs.75,10,075/- and declared profit by applying the provisions of Section 44AD of the Act @ 8% amounting to Rs.6,00,807/-. The Assessing Authority in para

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 by CIT(Exemption)\ncondoning the delay in filing of Form 10B, the AO has rightly denied the exemption\nclaimed u/s.11 of the Act and therefore, it does not warrant any interference.\nAppellant's Ground Nos.2 to 11 are partly allowed

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 passed by CIT(Exemption)\ncondoning the delay in filing of Form 10B, the AO has rightly denied the exemption\nclaimed u/s.11 of the Act and therefore, it does not warrant any interference.\nAppellant's Ground Nos.2 to 11 are partly

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

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 by the assessee in the appeal regarding the addition made

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.

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 is now covered

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

AJAY KUMAR JAIN,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal in I

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Years:2013-14

delay was condoned and Learned counsel for the assessee was asked to proceed with his arguments. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the only issue raised in this appeal is the action of learned CIT(A) by which he has disallowed an amount of interest of Rs.10,89,921/- which the assessee had claimed to have incurred against

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), KANPUR vs. SHRI AJAY KUMAR JAIN, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal in I

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Years:2013-14

delay was condoned and Learned counsel for the assessee was asked to proceed with his arguments. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the only issue raised in this appeal is the action of learned CIT(A) by which he has disallowed an amount of interest of Rs.10,89,921/- which the assessee had claimed to have incurred against

MR. ADITYA KUMAR,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-1(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Y. 2017-18 Mr. Aditya Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), 1, Anora, Amausi, Lucknow Lucknow-226008 Pan Bfapok 7298L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Siddharth Kohli, Advocate Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2024 O R D E R

Section 115BBE thus confusing the entire transaction which in facts was simply a clear cut case of 'Capital Gains and ought to has been assessed u/s 45 of the Act thus the observation and conclusion drawn in Para 12 of the assessment order and arbitrary, illegal and based upon presumption and surmises ignoring the facts that the sale deeds executed

RAJ MANI YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-3(3), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Raj Mani Yadav V. The Income Tax Officer 3(3) D-124, Harihar Nagar Lucknow Indira Nagar, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Bcopr2293D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07 08 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.10.2023, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Salaried Person, E-Filed His Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 On 1.8.2017, Declaring A Total Taxable Income Of Rs.2,87,850/-. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass & The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment, Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.19,45,850/- By Making Addition Under Section 69A Read With Section 115Bbe Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) At Rs.16,58,000/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposited During Demonetization. 3. Aggrieved, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Under Section 246A Of The Act Before The Ld. Cit(A), Lucknow-1 On 18.12.2019. Later On, The Appeal Migrated To Nfac, Who Vide Its

45,850/- by making addition under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) at Rs.16,58,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposited during demonetization. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal under section 246A of the Act before the ld. CIT(A), Lucknow-1 on 18.12.2019. Later on, the appeal

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

5. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A in refusing to condone the delay since the same got occasioned on account of bonafide reasons beyond the control of the assessee and that there is no malafide in not preferring the appeal within time. 6. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

5. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A in refusing to condone the delay since the same got occasioned on account of bonafide reasons beyond the control of the assessee and that there is no malafide in not preferring the appeal within time. 6. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances