THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 206C of the income Tax Act and have misapplied the provisions of the Act. 4. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has further erred in holding the TCS is applicable on 'sand excavation" and brick kilns" since the same are outside of the preview of Mines and Minerals

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 206C of the income Tax Act and have misapplied the provisions of the Act. 4. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has further erred in holding the TCS is applicable on 'sand excavation" and brick kilns" since the same are outside of the preview of Mines and Minerals

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 206C of the income Tax Act and have misapplied the provisions of the Act. 4. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has further erred in holding the TCS is applicable on 'sand excavation" and brick kilns" since the same are outside of the preview of Mines and Minerals

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 206C of the income Tax Act and have misapplied the provisions of the Act. 4. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has further erred in holding the TCS is applicable on 'sand excavation" and brick kilns" since the same are outside of the preview of Mines and Minerals

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 206C of the income Tax Act and have misapplied the provisions of the Act. 4. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has further erred in holding the TCS is applicable on 'sand excavation" and brick kilns" since the same are outside of the preview of Mines and Minerals

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 206C of the income Tax Act and have misapplied the provisions of the Act. 4. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has further erred in holding the TCS is applicable on 'sand excavation" and brick kilns" since the same are outside of the preview of Mines and Minerals

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 206C of the income Tax Act and have misapplied the provisions of the Act. 4. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has further erred in holding the TCS is applicable on 'sand excavation" and brick kilns" since the same are outside of the preview of Mines and Minerals

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

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 of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), sustaining the order

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

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 of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), sustaining the order

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

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 of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), sustaining the order

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

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 of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), sustaining the order

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

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 of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), sustaining the order

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

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 of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), sustaining the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GONDA, GONDA vs. M/S. KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, BALRAMPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

46A(3) of the I.R. Rules, 1962.” I.T.A. No.184/Lkw/2023 Assessment year:2013-14 2 (B) The appeal filed by Revenue is beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act” for short). A petition vide letter dated 13/06/2023 has been filed by Revenue seeking condonation of delay and explaining the reason for delay

M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. D/ACIT-1,CENTRAL-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 14A r.w.r 8D do not draw any relation to such expenditures in relation to exempt. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts as the assessee invested a substantial amount of Rs. 187 Cr. in group companies/sister concerns which entail disallowances to be computed as per the provision of 14A of the I.T. Act read

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

section 14A r.w.r 8D do not draw any relation to such expenditures in relation to exempt. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts as the assessee invested a substantial amount of Rs. 187 Cr. in group companies/sister concerns which entail disallowances to be computed as per the provision of 14A of the I.T. Act read

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 14A r.w.r 8D do not draw any relation to such expenditures in relation to exempt. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts as the assessee invested a substantial amount of Rs. 187 Cr. in group companies/sister concerns which entail disallowances to be computed as per the provision of 14A of the I.T. Act read

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GONDA, GONDA vs. M/S. KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, BALRAMPUR

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section in ITR by assessee without giving opportunity and calling for remand report from the Assessing Officer u/s 250(4) of the IT Act read with Rule 46A(3) of the I.R. Rules, 1962.” (B) The appeal filed by Revenue is beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act” for short

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

In the result, appeals vide I

46A.”\n\nC.O.No.01/Lkw/2025\n\n1.\nBecause the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts & law not deleting the issue relating to issuance of notice u/s 148 by Assessing Officer not accordance with law and facts.\n\n2.\nBecause the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.31,64,146/- out of deduction claimed of Rs.6