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

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 and in the circumstances of the case, the Id."CIT(A)" should have directed the AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 270A

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

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 and in the circumstances of the case, the Id."CIT(A)" should have directed the AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 270A

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

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 and in the circumstances of the case, the Id."CIT(A)" should have directed the AO to drop the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 270A

SHRI JITESH KUMAR SONKAR,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-3(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Jitesh Kumar Sonkar V. The Income Tax Officer – 3(2) 7-A, Sabji Mandi Lucknow Sitapur Road, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Asyps1555Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri D.D. Chopra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 19 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2024 O R D E R

69C of the Act. The Assessing Officer also noticed that the assessee had claimed expenses amounting to Rs.14,75,910/- under various heads. As per the AO, since the assessee had failed to produce the books of account, bills and vouchers for verification, an ad hoc addition @ 20% on the total expenses of Rs.14,75,910/-, (which worked

DILEEP KUMAR OJHA,SITAPUR vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sudhhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condone the delay in filing of the aforesaid appeals beyond the time limit prescribed under section 249(3) of the Act; and the assessee’s aforesaid appeals were dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) on grounds of limitation. For the sake of convenience and brevity, these eleven appeals are being hereby disposed ofs through this consolidated order. (2). The grounds

VIKAS SINGH,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 69C of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of learned CIT(A). Vide impugned order dated 26/12/2024, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) on limitation ground, without going into merits of the appeal (C) During the course of hearing in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, none was present on behalf

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

In the result, appeals vide I

condone the delay. Accordingly, we do not treat the appeal of\nRevenue as barred by limitation. The appeal is treated as having been filed\nin time, and is being decided on merits. In this appeal filed by Revenue,\nfirst issue in dispute is assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act\namounting to Rs.2

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

condone the delay. Accordingly, we do not treat the appeal of\nRevenue as barred by limitation. The appeal is treated as having been filed\nin time, and is being decided on merits. In this appeal filed by Revenue,\nfirst issue in dispute is assessee's claim for deduction u/s 80IA of the Act\namounting to Rs.2

RAJESH KUMAR,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER(NFAC), DELHI, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

69C of the Income Tax Act. 4. The Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs.15,500/- as Income from other sources. 5. That Ld. AO has made the above addition & disallowance arbitrarily, unjustly and are unwarranted & uncalled for and too high in the present case

RAJESH KUMAR,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTE(NFAC), DELHI, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

69C of the Income Tax Act. 4. The Ld. Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in making the addition of Rs.15,500/- as Income from other sources. 5. That Ld. AO has made the above addition & disallowance arbitrarily, unjustly and are unwarranted & uncalled for and too high in the present case

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

condone the delay. At the\ntime of hearing, the learned Departmental Representative for Revenue did\nnot press the limitation issue, and agreed to the appeal being decided on\nmerits. Accordingly, we do not treat the appeal of the assessee as barred\nby limitation. The appeal is treated as having been filed in time, and is\nbeing decided on merits