M/S PRAMOD TELECOM PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, in ITA. No

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

delay may be condoned. 3. We have duly considered the facts submitted and after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. M/s Pramod Telecom Pvt. Ltd. A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2020-21 MST. Katiji & Ors 167 ITR 471 (SC), the appeals are admitted for hearing on their merits

SHRAMIK VIKAS SAHKARI SHRRAM SAMVIDA SAMITI LTD.,KANPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 1(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2019-20 Shramik Vikas Sahkari V. The Assessing Officer Shrram Samvida Samiti Ltd, Circle 1(1)(1) 135-K-2, Nankari, Iit Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R

condone either the delay or allow any claim of deduction. The ld. CIT(A) further noted that even as per the provisions of section 80AC (ii) of the Act, no deduction under any provisions of Chapter VIA was to be allowed w.e.f. 1.4.2018 unless the assessee had filed the return of income on or before the due date specified under

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

6) of the Act dealt with actual computation of deduction whereas Section 80-I(1) of the Act dealt with the treatment to be given to such deductions in order to arrive at the total income of the assessee. The Assessee also relied on the judgment of this Court in Canara Workshops (P) Ltd., Kodialball, Mangalore (supra) to emphasize

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

6) of the Act dealt with actual computation of deduction whereas Section 80-I(1) of the Act dealt with the treatment to be given to such deductions in order to arrive at the total income of the assessee. The Assessee also relied on the judgment of this Court in Canara Workshops (P) Ltd., Kodialball, Mangalore (supra) to emphasize

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

6) of the Act dealt with actual computation of deduction whereas Section 80-I(1) of the Act dealt with the treatment to be given to such deductions in order to arrive at the total income of the assessee. The Assessee also relied on the judgment of this Court in Canara Workshops (P) Ltd., Kodialball, Mangalore (supra) to emphasize

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

1) Addition of Rs.79,00,000/- made u/s 68 on account of treatment of Unsecured Loan as unexplained sum. (ii) Addition of Rs.2,37,000/- made u/s 69C on account of estimated commission on alleged unexplained sum. (iii) Disallowance of Rs.17,25,096/-made u/s 37 on account of disallowance of interest on unsecured loan. 6. BECAUSE on the facts

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. DY, CIT-CC-1, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

1) Addition of Rs.79,00,000/- made u/s 68 on account of treatment of Unsecured Loan as unexplained sum. (ii) Addition of Rs.2,37,000/- made u/s 69C on account of estimated commission on alleged unexplained sum. (iii) Disallowance of Rs.17,25,096/-made u/s 37 on account of disallowance of interest on unsecured loan. 6. BECAUSE on the facts

M/S FIVE ROSES,KANPUR vs. J/DCIT-CC,, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

1) Addition of Rs.79,00,000/- made u/s 68 on account of treatment of Unsecured Loan as unexplained sum. (ii) Addition of Rs.2,37,000/- made u/s 69C on account of estimated commission on alleged unexplained sum. (iii) Disallowance of Rs.17,25,096/-made u/s 37 on account of disallowance of interest on unsecured loan. 6. BECAUSE on the facts

FUTURE MONEY SALES AND MARKETING PVT.LTD, A-28,NEAR BANKEY BIHARI TAMPEL RAJENDRA NAGER, BAREILLY-243001,,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(2),BAREILLY-NEW., BAREILLY-NEW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriafuture Money Sales & Income Tax Officer-1(2) V. Marketing Pvt. Ltd Rampur Garden, Bareilly- A-28, Near Bankey Bihari New-243001. Tample, Rajendra Nagar, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aabcf4395H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 10 2024 O R D E R

6 of 12 condonation of delay moved by the assessee so far, I am of the considered opinion that there is no sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal inasmuch as such delay had occurred on account of sheer negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee in adhering to the provisions of the statute and the Limitation

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

6) of the Act dealt with actual\ncomputation of deduction whereas Section 80-I(1) of the Act dealt\nwith the treatment to be given to such deductions in order to arrive at\nthe total income of the assessee. The Assessee also relied on the\njudgment of this Court in Canara Workshops (P) Ltd., Kodialball,\nMangalore (supra) to emphasize

M/S MODEL EXIM,KANPUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriam/S. Model Exim Pcit (Central) V. 624-C, Defence Colony, 7/81-B, Tilak Nagar, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010. Kanpur. Pan:Aadfm6163H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Smt Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 29 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 11 2024 O R D E R

condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining reasons for such delay has been filed. The relevant part of the application explaining cause of delay is reproduced as under: - “1) Computation of number of days of delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble I.T.A.T.: (a) Date of passing of impugned Order u/s 263 of the Income

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

In the result, appeals vide I

6) of the Act dealt with actual\ncomputation of deduction whereas Section 80-I(1) of the Act dealt\nwith the treatment to be given to such deductions in order to arrive at\nthe total income of the assessee. The Assessee also relied on the\njudgment of this Court in Canara Workshops (P) Ltd., Kodialball,\nMangalore (supra) to emphasize

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNIAN, LTD. ,LAKHIPUR KHERI vs. ITO WARD-3(4), LAKHIPUR-1

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

6 days in filing of this appeal. The learned D.R. for Revenue expressed no objection to condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. In view of the foregoing and having regard to section 253(3) of the I. T. Act, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted. (C) In this case

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

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

1) of the Income tax Act, being Rs.31,98,814/- in all totaling Rs.1,08,15.040/ - wholly on notions. conjectures and surmises. 2. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee as the Ld. Assessing Officer was not at all justified in raising the demand of Rs.76,16,225/- and Rs.31

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

1) of the Income tax Act, being Rs.31,98,814/- in all totaling Rs.1,08,15.040/ - wholly on notions. conjectures and surmises. 2. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee as the Ld. Assessing Officer was not at all justified in raising the demand of Rs.76,16,225/- and Rs.31

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

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

1) of the Income tax Act, being Rs.31,98,814/- in all totaling Rs.1,08,15.040/ - wholly on notions. conjectures and surmises. 2. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee as the Ld. Assessing Officer was not at all justified in raising the demand of Rs.76,16,225/- and Rs.31

WAKEEL AHAMAD,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2010-11 Mr Wakeel Ahamad Income Tax Officer-2(3) V. Sheeshgarh, Meerganj, Bareilly, Aayakar Bhawan, C.R. Uttar Pradesh-243505. Building, Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, Bareilly, (Up)-243001. Pan:Ajcpa9737B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

6. Decision 6.1 The appeal has been filed by delay of 38 days. The assessee had provided the reason of delay in the Form 35 which is reproduced as below: “The assessment in the above mentioned case was completely by the Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3), Bareilly u/s 147/144(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The unexplained

MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,KANPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

6. BECAUSE, without prejudice to the grounds herein-fore, the return of income filed by the assessee without furnishing requisite audit report was a defective return for which the ITA Nos.651, 652 & 653/LKW/2024 Page 11 of 15 Assessing Officer ought to have provided the opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defect, as provided in sub-section (9) of section

MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,KANPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), KANPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

6. BECAUSE, without prejudice to the grounds herein-fore, the return of income filed by the assessee without furnishing requisite audit report was a defective return for which the ITA Nos.651, 652 & 653/LKW/2024 Page 11 of 15 Assessing Officer ought to have provided the opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defect, as provided in sub-section (9) of section