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

50 Narain Das Building, Flat No. 9, Narhi, Lucknow UP-226001 PAN: BCBPR4851G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1), Lucknow . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee by : Mr Saurabh Gupta [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr Neil Jain [‘Ld. DR’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 19/09/2024 आदेश / ORDER

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

50 Narain Das Building, Flat No. 9, Narhi, Lucknow UP-226001 PAN: BCBPR4851G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1), Lucknow . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee by : Mr Saurabh Gupta [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr Neil Jain [‘Ld. DR’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 19/09/2024 आदेश / ORDER

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

DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SHAHJAHANPUR,BSHAHJAHANPUR vs. ADDL / JDIT (I & CI), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals in ITA Nos

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

delay in filing the appeal for the A.Y. 2021-22 is condoned and both appeals are taken up for hearing. 3. The facts of the case are that in assessment year 2018-19, the assessee failed to file statement of financial transactions under SFT Codes- 001, 002 and 005 for the F.Y. 2018-19. Thereafter, a notice under section

DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, SHAHJAHANPUR,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. ADDL/JDIT (I & CI), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals in ITA Nos

delay in filing the appeal for the A.Y. 2021-22 is condoned and both appeals are taken up for hearing. 3. The facts of the case are that in assessment year 2018-19, the assessee failed to file statement of financial transactions under SFT Codes- 001, 002 and 005 for the F.Y. 2018-19. Thereafter, a notice under section

HARDOI DISTRICT CANE GROWERS CO-*OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. ITO-3(2),, HARDOI-1

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 Hardoi District Cane Growers V. The Ito 3(2) Co-Operative Society Ltd. Hardoi Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj Lakhimpur Kheri Tan/Pan:Aabah4032R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R

section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act at Rs.34,50,823/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed on account of the fact that there was a delay of 40 days in filing of appeal before the NFAC and no application for condonation

MOQEETUR RAHMAN KHAN,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshramoqeetur Rahman Khan V. Ito-4 971, Mannan Manzil, Sadar Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Bazar, Lucknow G.P.O, Lucknow-226001. Lucknow-226001. Pan:Agrpr4785N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merits. (B). In this case, assessment order dated 28.04.2021 was passed by the Assessing Officer passed u/s 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). Separately, penalty proceedings u/s 271B of the Act were also initiated

GOBIND INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BARABANKI vs. DCIT/ACIT-3,LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 29/10/2017 declaring total income at Rs.41,10,830/-. In the case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings

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

M/S. BIG BROKERS HOUSE STOCK LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,C.C-II, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 148 is (as per the reasons) that the assessee has made deposits of Rs.51,50,000/- in its bank account and the source of cash deposit has been treated to be unexplained for the reason that the return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 has not been filed by the assessee. It is submitted, that there is no column

M/S. BIG BROKERS HOUSE STOCK LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,C.C-II, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 148 is (as per the reasons) that the assessee has made deposits of Rs.51,50,000/- in its bank account and the source of cash deposit has been treated to be unexplained for the reason that the return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 has not been filed by the assessee. It is submitted, that there is no column

LAXMI DUTT BHATT,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.830/Lkw/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 Laxmi Dutt Bhatt V. Ito-3(2) Range-Iii C-340, Sector-B, Mahanagar, Aaykar Bhawan, Ashok Lucknow-226001. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Agypb8691B अपीलाथ"/(Appellant) ""यथ"/(Respondent) अपीलाथ" "क और से/Appellant By: None ""यथ" "क और से /Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई "क तार"ख / Date Of Hearing: 25 03 2025 घोषणा "क तार"ख/ Date Of 03 04 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) without any justification came to a finding that “the conduct of the appellant is against human probabilities and apparent the said story has been concocted by the appellant to explain the cash deposit Rs.20,00,000/- in his bank account. 8. That the authorities were wrong

SRI SAINATH ASSOCIATES,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT-6, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 253(3) of IT Act. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned. Being satisfied with the reasons stated in application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal; we condone the delay in filing

VIMLESH KUMAR,RAEBARELI vs. ITO, RAEBARELI

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivatava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vimlesh Kumar Income Tax Officer V. Village & Post Thulendi, Income Tax Building, Jail Bachhrawan, Raebareli- Road, Raebareli-229001. 229301. Pan:Blbpk4834R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 11 2024 O R D E R

condone the delay in filing of this appeal. The appeal is admitted for decision of merits. 3. In this case, the assessment order dated 21.03.2024 was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”) under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Act wherein the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.1,08,50

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

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

ARUN KUMAR MAURYA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delayed and in such circumstance, there should have been a notice issued under section 143(2) as has been held in Hotel Blue Moon (supra). 4. The only question of law arising in the facts and circumstances of the case is whether notice should have been issued under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act? 5. Admittedly, the notice

KAMRAN ZUBAIR,KANPUR vs. THE AO CIRCLE-1(2)(1),, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Kamran Zubair V. The Assessing Officer 112/349-D, Swaroop Nagar Circle 1(2)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaepz7118E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Saurabh Dubey, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 12 2024 O R D E R

section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the Id.AO as well as Id.CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.27,50,000/- u/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961 rws 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 leading to double taxation as the cash deposit has already been considered in the return of income