MS. HARDEEP KAUR,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE -3(4), LAKHIMPUR KHERI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2017-18

delay was condoned and Learned counsel for the assessee was asked to proceed with his arguments. 3. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is in transport business and is also earning income from agriculture and has been filing the return of income for the last more than 10 years and the returns are being filed under

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

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

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

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

M/S CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1, RANGE-3(4), LAKHIMPUR KHERI

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The facts of the case in all the three assessment orders are similar. The assessee had claimed deduction under section 80P with respect to the interest 6 ITA No.37/LKW/2022, ITA No.15/Lkw/2023 & ITA No.394/ Lkw/2019 M/s Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd. earned on deposits made by it with the banks

M/S CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION GOLA,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE-3(4), LAKHIMPUR KHERI-1

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The facts of the case in all the three assessment orders are similar. The assessee had claimed deduction under section 80P with respect to the interest 6 ITA No.37/LKW/2022, ITA No.15/Lkw/2023 & ITA No.394/ Lkw/2019 M/s Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd. earned on deposits made by it with the banks

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

79,632/- against the returned income of Rs.11,67,632/-. 2. Because the Learned officer and the 'Learned CIT (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Center' erred is not providing reasonable and proper opportunity before completing the order. 3. Because the Learned officer and the 'Learned CIT (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Center' erred both on facts and in law in making

SATYAWADI HARISHCHANDRA SWASTHYA PARIKSHAN SAMITI,LUCKNOW vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condoning the delay being medical reasons in filing the appeal without appreciating that there was a reasonable cause for delay. 2. The Ld Addl./JCIT (Appeal) Patna did not appreciate that Treasurer of the Society Sri Madan Mohan Rastogi, aged about %L years who is looking after the taxation matter and keeping e-profile password was suffering from severe Heart

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

79,43,101/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section 14A does not use the word ‘income of the year’ but ‘income under the act’ and CBDT circular no. 05/2014 dated 11/02/2014 makes it clear that the expenses, which are relatable to earning of exempt income have to be considered for disallowance irrespective of the fact

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

79,43,101/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section 14A does not use the word ‘income of the year’ but ‘income under the act’ and CBDT circular no. 05/2014 dated 11/02/2014 makes it clear that the expenses, which are relatable to earning of exempt income have to be considered for disallowance irrespective of the fact

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

79,43,101/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section 14A does not use the word ‘income of the year’ but ‘income under the act’ and CBDT circular no. 05/2014 dated 11/02/2014 makes it clear that the expenses, which are relatable to earning of exempt income have to be considered for disallowance irrespective of the fact

U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-VI, 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

79,43,101/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section 14A does not use the word ‘income of the year’ but ‘income under the act’ and CBDT circular no. 05/2014 dated 11/02/2014 makes it clear that the expenses, which are relatable to earning of exempt income have to be considered for disallowance irrespective of the fact

DCIT, RANGE-6, 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

79,43,101/- u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that Section 14A does not use the word ‘income of the year’ but ‘income under the act’ and CBDT circular no. 05/2014 dated 11/02/2014 makes it clear that the expenses, which are relatable to earning of exempt income have to be considered for disallowance irrespective of the fact

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

section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the Cross Objection; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the Cross Objection for hearing. The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application

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

section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the Cross Objection; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the Cross Objection for hearing. The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application

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

section 253(3) of IT Act. The assessee has submitted application for condonation of delay in filing of the Cross Objection; pleading that the delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the assessee and has requested to admit the Cross Objection for hearing. The learned Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to assessee’s application

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

BASTI SAHKARI KRAYA CENTER VIKRAY SAMITI LIMITED,BASTI vs. ITO, BASTI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2015-16 Basti Sahkari Kraya Center V. Income Tax Officer Vikray Samiti Limited National Faceless Raja Bazar, Purani Basti, Basti- Assessment, New Delhi- 272002, Uttar Pradesh, India. 110001. Tan/Pan: Aacab0882G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit-Dr O R D E R

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (B) In this case, assessment order dated 24.03.2023 was passed u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was determined at Rs.2,79