M/S BENARA BEARING PVT.LTD,AGRA vs. DCIT-CC-1, KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. : B.P. 1996-97 To 2002-03 M/S Benara Bearings Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income- 44/347, Bharatpur Road, Vs. Tax, Central Circle-1, Kanpur Bodla, Agra-282007 U.P. Pan:Aabcb5525F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, Advcoate Revenue By: Sh. Gayasuddin, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21.09.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

condone delay by enacting Section 51 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial

SYED MOHAMMAD MAYAR HUSAIN RIZVI,PANCHKULA vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALURU, BANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

51,915/- which was revised on 10/09/2012 declaring total income of Rs.16,54,877/-. The Assessing Officer processed the original return filed by the assessee and passed assessment order u/s 143(1) of the Act and created a demand of Rs.76,62,535/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned

J AND A MEMORIAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY,BAREILLY vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E), LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

delay of 51 days in filing these appeals is condoned. 6. The appeal in ITA No.661/LKW/2019 against the order passed under section

J AND A MEMORIAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY,BAREILLY vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E), LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

delay of 51 days in filing these appeals is condoned. 6. The appeal in ITA No.661/LKW/2019 against the order passed under section

M/S URBAN COOP BANK LTD,BAREILLY vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BAREILLY NEW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

delay was condoned and ld. AR was asked to proceed with her arguments. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the only issue, involved in this appeal, is the addition sustained by CIT(A) of Rs.15,49,764/- representing employees’ share towards contribution to EPF/ESIC which the assessee had deposited beyond the due date mentioned

BABIAN INN,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

delay was condoned and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his arguments. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the only issue, involved in this appeal, is the addition sustained by CIT(A) of Rs.1,67,054/- representing employees’ share towards contribution to EPF/ESIC which the assessee had deposited beyond the due date mentioned I.T.A

MR.SHITIJ DHAWAN,KANPUR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 Mr. Shitij Dhawan V. The Assessing Officer 122/235, Fazalganj Special Range Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Acqpd3380G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. Page 3 of 17 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed his return of income on 30.9.2019, declaring an income of Rs.20,19,01,760/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment, assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.20,21,20,480/-, disallowing

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

51 days in preferring the instant appeal This delay, got occasioned due to peculiar circumstances, beyond the control of the assessee and are prayed to be condoned in the interest of justice in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal The appeal is prayed to be heard on merits

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

51 days in preferring the instant appeal This delay, got occasioned due to peculiar circumstances, beyond the control of the assessee and are prayed to be condoned in the interest of justice in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal The appeal is prayed to be heard on merits

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

51 days in preferring the instant appeal This delay, got occasioned due to peculiar circumstances, beyond the control of the assessee and are prayed to be condoned in the interest of justice in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal The appeal is prayed to be heard on merits

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

51 days in preferring the instant appeal This delay, got occasioned due to peculiar circumstances, beyond the control of the assessee and are prayed to be condoned in the interest of justice in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal The appeal is prayed to be heard on merits

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

51 days in preferring the instant appeal This delay, got occasioned due to peculiar circumstances, beyond the control of the assessee and are prayed to be condoned in the interest of justice in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal The appeal is prayed to be heard on merits

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

51 days in preferring the instant appeal This delay, got occasioned due to peculiar circumstances, beyond the control of the assessee and are prayed to be condoned in the interest of justice in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal The appeal is prayed to be heard on merits

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

51 days in preferring the instant appeal This delay, got occasioned due to peculiar circumstances, beyond the control of the assessee and are prayed to be condoned in the interest of justice in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal The appeal is prayed to be heard on merits

MR. GULREJ ANSARI,UNNAO vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), UNNAO NEW

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

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

condonation of delay which happened to be due to onset of COVID-19 and due to delay in the decision on application filed by assessee u/s. 154 of the Act. It was submitted that in respect of Assessment Year 2018-19, the application for rectification was rejected by CPC on 16.1.2020 and the appeal was to be filed

MR. GULREJ ANSARI,UNNAO vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), UNNAO-NEW

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

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

condonation of delay which happened to be due to onset of COVID-19 and due to delay in the decision on application filed by assessee u/s. 154 of the Act. It was submitted that in respect of Assessment Year 2018-19, the application for rectification was rejected by CPC on 16.1.2020 and the appeal was to be filed

MOHD HASEEB,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2018-19 Mohd. Haseeb V. The Ito 551 Jha, Ram Nagar Range 6(2) Kanpur Road, Alambagh Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abcph6980P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16 06 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 06 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 29.12.2021, For Assessment Year 2018-19, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because Without Considering The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.23,88,734/- Under Section 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)X) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Being Delay In Deposition Of Employees Share Of Provident Fund. 2. That In Any Case & In Any View Of The Matter, Impugned Addition/Allowance Assessment Order Are Bad In Law, Illegal, Unjustified, Contrary To Facts & Law & Based Upon Recording Of Incorrect Facts & Finding, Without Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Hearing, In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice & The Same Deserves To Be Quashed.

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed his return of income on 20.10.2020, declaring an income of Rs.10,65,273/-. 4. While processing the return of income at CPC, Bangalore, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of payment of Rs.23,88,734/- under section

J.P. MOTOR RPIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2018-19 J.P. Motor Pvt. Ltd. V. The Acit 313/22, Khun Khun Ji Road Range 1 Chowk, Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aabcj6763H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 07 2022 O R D E R

condone the delay. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income 26.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.33,87,965/-. The return was processed by the CPC, Bangalore, who disallowed the PF and ESI, amounting to Rs.16,54,319/-, observing that the same was deposited after the due date but before

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