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

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

46A.”\nC.O.No.01/Lkw/2025\n1.\nBecause the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts & law not\ndeleting the issue relating to issuance of notice u/s 148 by\nAssessing Officer not accordance with law and facts.\n2.\nBecause the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition\nof Rs.31,64,146/- out of deduction claimed of Rs.6,27,83,808/-\nu/s

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

THE DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

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

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the issue of limitation for passing orders under section 206C(6A) needed to be decided as a preliminary issue. The Tribunal noted that while previous ITAT decisions applied a 4-year limitation based on Section 201, the jurisdictional High Court's decision indicated that without a prescribed limitation, action should

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

46A.\n\nC.O.No.01/Lkw/2025\n\"1.\nBecause the learned CIT(A) has erred on facts & law not\ndeleting the issue relating to issuance of notice u/s 148 by\nAssessing Officer not accordance with law and facts.\n\n2.\nBecause the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition\nof Rs.31,64,146/- out of deduction claimed of Rs.6

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MORADABAD

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section