M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

condoned the delay in filing the Cross Objections and asked learned CIT, D.R. to proceed with her arguments on the Cross Objections. 4. Learned CIT, D.R. submitted that the Cross Objections are similar to the additional grounds of Revenue taken by the Revenue in the appeals no.630, Page 8 of 86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 631 and others which

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

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

12,73,65,536/-), as has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A)\", has not only\ninvolved multiplicity, as mentioned above, but the same is also in deviation from the\npast practice which is not permissible in law.\n5.1\nBECAUSE the ld. 'CIT(A)' has grossly erred in upholding the denial of\nexemption under 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)

12,73,65,536/-), as has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A)\", has not only\ninvolved multiplicity, as mentioned above, but the same is also in deviation from the\npast practice which is not permissible in law.\n\n5.1 BECAUSE the ld. 'CIT(A)' has grossly erred in upholding the denial of\nexemption under section

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:-

12. That the Id.AO has erred in making arbitrary and unlawful additions with prejudice and predetermined mind without application of mind. 13. That the Id.AO has erred in making addition without proper and adequate opportunity and application of mind. 14. That the appellant craves leave to introduce, modify or withdraw any ground of appeal with your honours kind permission

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

condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merits. I.T.A. No.649/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 2 (C) In this case, the assessment order dated 01.12.2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”), u/s 143(3) of the Act whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.1,77,68,734/- as against

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

delay in \nfiling of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is \nadmitted for hearing, on merits. \n(B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate \nTribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the \nassessee’s side:\n14 \nINDEX\n**********\nSIR, RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY\n(PAN-ATIPP6520B)\n1. Copy of ITR along

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

delay in filing of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is admitted for hearing, on merits. (B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the assessee’s side: 15 17 19 21 (B.1) Further, a consolidated synopsis, common for all the appeals

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

delay in filing of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is admitted for hearing, on merits. (B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the assessee’s side: 15 17 19 21 (B.1) Further, a consolidated synopsis, common for all the appeals

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

delay in filing of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is admitted for hearing, on merits. (B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the assessee’s side: 15 17 19 21 (B.1) Further, a consolidated synopsis, common for all the appeals

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

12. The import of Section 80-IA is that the ‘total income’ of an assessee is computed by taking into account the allowable deduction of the profits and gains derived from the ‘eligible business’. With respect to the facts of this Appeal, there is no dispute that the deduction quantified under Section 80-IA is Rs.492

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

12. The import of Section 80-IA is that the ‘total income’ of an assessee is computed by taking into account the allowable deduction of the profits and gains derived from the ‘eligible business’. With respect to the facts of this Appeal, there is no dispute that the deduction quantified under Section 80-IA is Rs.492

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

12. The import of Section 80-IA is that the ‘total income’ of an assessee is computed by taking into account the allowable deduction of the profits and gains derived from the ‘eligible business’. With respect to the facts of this Appeal, there is no dispute that the deduction quantified under Section 80-IA is Rs.492

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

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. CI HOSPITALITY WORLDWIDE PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is allowed and Cross

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

condonation of delay. Accordingly, we do not treat the appeal as barred by limitation. The I.T.A. No.449/Lkw/2020 3 C.O.No.1/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2017-18 appeal is treated as having been filed in time, and is admitted for hearing on merits. (B) In this case the assessee filed the return of income on 30/10/2017 declaring loss of Rs.1

NITYANAND,SANT KABIR NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BASTI, BASTI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2016-17 Nityanand V. The Income Tax Officer Vill. & Post Dhamaicha Basti Sant Kabir Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Agzpn3158R (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Vikram Acharya, Aca Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Teacher Employed With The Government Of U.P. & Earned Salary Income. The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.2,16,55,000/- In His Bank Account No.144200101001330 Maintained With Corporation Bank During The Year Under Consideration & The Cash Deposited By The Assessee During The Demonetization Period, I.E. From 01.04.2015 To 31.302.016 Was Rs.15,05,000/-. The Assessing Officer (Ao)

65,000/-. Subsequently, the AO issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act to the assessee. Since the assessee had not complied with the notices/letter, the AO issued show cause notice under section 144 of the Act, in response to which the assessee filed his replies on 05.11.2023 and 20.11.2023 along with bank account statements maintained with Corporation Bank

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. D.C.I.T. RANGE-6 (JAO), LUCKNOW

In the result, ita No.164/LKW/2022 stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

12,340/- (revised). 2.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 270A and 271B of the Act, separately. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority against the addition of Rs.33,49,65,000/- being interest on FDRs, disallowance of Rs.66,44,641/- being prior period expenses and non-allowance of credit

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. THE DCIT,RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, ita No.164/LKW/2022 stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

12,340/- (revised). 2.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 270A and 271B of the Act, separately. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority against the addition of Rs.33,49,65,000/- being interest on FDRs, disallowance of Rs.66,44,641/- being prior period expenses and non-allowance of credit

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (C) For the sake of convenience, consolidated order is being passed in these five appeals. (C.1) In assessment year 2011-12, cross appeals have been filed by the two sides. Assessment order dated 29/03/2014 was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. In the aforesaid