VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW. vs. DY. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW., LUCKNOW

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

56,129/ - out of which a payment of Rs.10,57,110/ has been made and further that as the department has withheld huge refunds the appellant was not in a position to pay the same and moreover as the amount is lying with the department the same should be treated as payment already made to the department and thus

M/S CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,LAKHIMPUR-KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-I, LAKHIMPUR -KHERI

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

delay was unintentional and caused by the failure of the local counsel to inform\nthe assessee about the passing of the appeal order and the pre-occupation by the\ncounsels at Lucknow with the tax audit and return filing. It was, therefore, prayed\nthat in the interest of justice, the appeal may be admitted. After considering the facts\nas narrated

UTTAR PRADESH WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION MISSION,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

condonation for delay\nin filing of Form No.10B was not furnished, but the respective finding of both the lower\nauthorities being factually incorrect, the assessee's claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act\ndeserves to be accepted and consequently necessary direction be issued to the Assessing\nOfficer to compute the income as per the mode prescribed in section

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)

condonation for delay\nin filing of Form No.10B was not furnished, but the respective finding of both the lower\nauthorities being factually incorrect, the assessee's claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act\ndeserves to be accepted and consequently necessary direction be issued to the Assessing\nOfficer to compute the income as per the mode prescribed in section

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

In the result, appeals vide I

56,447/ under Section 14A is warranted in the\npresent case. The interest on the loan amount used to invest in SPVs generating\nexempt dividend income is attributable to the exempt income and, therefore, falls\nsquarely under the ambit of Section 14A.\n\nThe Hon'ble Tribunal is respectfully requested to uphold the disallowance\nmade by the Assessing Officer under

EXCLUSIVE SELECTION CHIKAN (P), LTD,LUCKNOW vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Exclusive Selection V. National E-Assessment Chikan (P) Ltd. Centre 36, Cantt. Road Delhi G.F. Mahabir Complex Lucknow Tan/Pan:Lkneo5369A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwasnshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 12 2024 O R D E R

section 56(2)(x) of the Income- tax Act 1961. 4. Because the Learned officer and the 'Learned CIT (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Center' erred both on facts and in law in passing order against the settled judicial matter as pronounced by Hon'ble ITAT Vishakhapatnam in the case ACIT Vs Hira panna Jewelers (2021) 128 taxmann.com; (this

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

56(vi) to the Valuation Officer as contemplated under Section 50C of the Act. Thus, the addition so sustained is wholly untenable in law and deserves to be deleted. An order of assessment without mandatorily referring the case to DVO is bad in law. 5. Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order

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

56,447/ under Section 14A is warranted in the\npresent case. The interest on the loan amount used to invest in SPVs generating\nexempt dividend income is attributable to the exempt income and, therefore, falls\nsquarely under the ambit of Section 14A.\nThe Hon'ble Tribunal is respectfully requested to uphold the disallowance\nmade by the Assessing Officer under Section

ABHAY BENARA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2013-14 Abhay Benara, The Deputy V. Commissioner Of Income C/O 24/4, The Mall Kanpur-208001. Tax, Central Circle-1 Kanpur. Pan:Adlpb2007Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

condone the delay following the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji & Ors 167 ITR 471 (SC). 7. Now coming to the ground of appeal, the facts giving rise to the appeal is that the assessee filed his return of income through electronic mode

LALJI YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

section 253(3) of IT Act. The appellant assessee\nhas filed application for condonation of delay. The application for\ncondonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the assessee.\nThe Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not\nexpress any objection to the delay being condoned. Being\nsatisfied with the reasons stated in application seeking\ncondonation of delay

VENUS NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. In the present case, the service of the assessment order dated 07.12.2022 passed for AY 2021-22 on the appellant was not complete

VENUS NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. In the present case, the service of the assessment order dated 07.12.2022 passed for AY 2021-22 on the appellant was not complete

VENUS NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. In the present case, the service of the assessment order dated 07.12.2022 passed for AY 2021-22 on the appellant was not complete

VENUS NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. In the present case, the service of the assessment order dated 07.12.2022 passed for AY 2021-22 on the appellant was not complete

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(2), LUCKNOW vs. M/S DEV BHOOMI PROMOTERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2012-13

delay was condoned and Learned D. R. was asked to proceed with his arguments. 3. Learned D. R. submitted that in this case the assessee had issued share capital to four companies at a premium and had forfeited the share application money and therefore, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to explain and on examination of the explanation, the Assessing

DIVESH KUMAR,BAREILLY vs. ACIT CENTRAL, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Divesh Kumar Shri Kharak Singh V. Rawat, 19, Shishgarh, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh-243105. Dc/Acit-Cent, Bareilly Office Of The Acit, Central Circle Dc/Acit Cent Bareilly-1-243001 Pan:Cfdpk1712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 19 11 2024

delay the tax proceedings. Despite being provided enough opportunity, the assessee chose to remain silent and decided not to bring any material on record. Hence, the assessing officer has left with no other option but to complete the assessment proceedings in the case of assessee on the basis of factual material available on record. 5.1 Observation.. On examination

UTTAR PRADESH DIPLOMA ENGINEERS MAHASANGH,LUCKNOW vs. DY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

56), within the meaning of section 71 of the I. T. Act.” (A.1) These appeals have been filed by the assessee, beyond time limit prescribed under section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted applications, duly supported by affidavits, for condonation of delay

RADHA KAMAL UPADHYAY,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-6, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & 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 I.T.A. No.616/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 2 application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this