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

5) cannot be pressed into service for reading a limitation of the deduction under sub-section (1) only to ‘business income’. An attempt was made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue to rely on the phrase ‘derived … from’ in Section 80-IA (1) of the Act in respect of his submission that the intention of the legislature

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

5) cannot be pressed into service for reading a limitation of the\ndeduction under sub-section (1) only to 'business income'. An attempt\nwas made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue to rely on\nthe phrase 'derived ... from' in Section 80-IA (1) of the Act in respect\nof his submission that the intention of the legislature

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

In the result, appeals vide I

5) cannot be pressed into service for reading a limitation of the\ndeduction under sub-section (1) only to 'business income'. An attempt\nwas made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue to rely on\nthe phrase 'derived ... from' in Section 80-IA (1) of the Act in respect\nof his submission that the intention of the legislature

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

Section 139(5) is allowed to correct mistakes or\nomissions in the original return, but it cannot be used to introduce new claims that\nwere not initially included. The scope of revisions is limited to rectifying genuine\nerrors or omissions, not to include new claims that could have been made in the\noriginal return.\nThe Delhi High Court

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

condone the delay in filing of appeal before us and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of finished leather and sale of license. The assessee company had filed its Page 9 of 24 return of income

GALLANTT FOUNDATION (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GOVIND FOUNDATION),GORAKHPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

80(5) deserved to be granted. 3. BECAUSE various adverse observations made by the CIT in the impugned order; particularly that - i) no expenditure has been incurred on the objects as mentioned in the trust deed of the assessee; ii) expenses on food distribution are not as per object of the assesse trust; AY-2023-24 Gallant Foundation (formerly known

GALLANTT FOUNDATION( FORMERLY KNOWN AS GOVIND FOUNDATION),GORAKHPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

80(5) deserved to be granted. 3. BECAUSE various adverse observations made by the CIT in the impugned order; particularly that - i) no expenditure has been incurred on the objects as mentioned in the trust deed of the assessee; ii) expenses on food distribution are not as per object of the assesse trust; AY-2023-24 Gallant Foundation (formerly known

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

80-IE if the return is furnished beyond the due date-specified under sub-section(1) of section 139; or (vi) Addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income in the return; “143. (1) Where a return has been made under section

CHARAK HELTH CARE & RURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-CC-2, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

section 143(1) that passed for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 15.06.2020. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. 1 Because the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to facts & law and circumstances of the case. 2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts while rejecting the application for condonation of delay

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

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

condone such delay as per section\n119(2)(b)\".\n6. 27. Since the appellant has not furnished any order passed by CIT(Exemption)\ncondoning the delay in filing of Form 10B, the AO has rightly denied the exemption\nclaimed u/s.11 of the Act and therefore, it does not warrant any interference.\nAppellant's Ground Nos.2 to 11 are partly allowed

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)

condone such delay as per section\n119(2)(b)\".\n\n6. 27. Since the appellant has not furnished any order passed by CIT(Exemption)\ncondoning the delay in filing of Form 10B, the AO has rightly denied the exemption\nclaimed u/s.11 of the Act and therefore, it does not warrant any interference.\nAppellant's Ground Nos.2 to 11 are partly

MEDICAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURE 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

80,402/-. 8. BECAUSE, as per the scheme of taxation under the Income Tax Act, only real income, i.e., the income as reduced by the expenditure incurred to earn the income, can be taxed and the authorities below have grossly erred in not allowing the deduction of expenses so incurred even though the relevant information of the expenses incurred

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

80,402/-. 8. BECAUSE, as per the scheme of taxation under the Income Tax Act, only real income, i.e., the income as reduced by the expenditure incurred to earn the income, can be taxed and the authorities below have grossly erred in not allowing the deduction of expenses so incurred even though the relevant information of the expenses incurred

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

80,402/-. 8. BECAUSE, as per the scheme of taxation under the Income Tax Act, only real income, i.e., the income as reduced by the expenditure incurred to earn the income, can be taxed and the authorities below have grossly erred in not allowing the deduction of expenses so incurred even though the relevant information of the expenses incurred

NISHA FAZAL,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO-4(3), KANPUR-01

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

80/- is bad in law.\n8.\nBecause, the Id. AO has make a penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of IT\nAct,1961 after compliance done within time limit through official\nE-mail at kanpur.ito2.1.3@incometax.gov.in dated 25/11/2019\nbut she was not considered the same, then therefore is bad in\nlaw.\n9.\nBecause, the Id. AO knowingly issued notice

CO-OP-CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION GOLA,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. ITO RANGE-3(4), LAKHIMPUR KHERI-1

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaco-Op Cane Development The Income Tax Officer, V. Union Gola Range-3(4) C/O Ayyubi Chamber, Raniganj, Lakhimpur Kheri-262701. Lakhimpur Kheri-262701, Up. Pan:Aaaac1960A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 10 2024 O R D E R

condoning delay in such cases. The intention of legislature with respect to such cases is very clear that the remedy in such situation lies in the section 119 of the Act. 4.2 At this stage, it will be relevant to reproduce the relevant provisions of section 143(1) of the Act which is as under: (a) The total income

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-3, KANPUR vs. SMT. SUCHETA WAHI, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2014-15 The Jt. Cit (Osd) V. Sucheta Wahi Circle 3 128/636, K Block Kanpur Kidwai Nagar Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aagpw9705N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Application Of The Assessee For Withdrawal. Respondent By: Shri Pankaj Sachan, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 31 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07 06 2022 O R D E R

80,412/-. Therefore, the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kanpur vide letter dated 29.01.2019 had not recommended the proposal for filing of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Lucknow on the ground that the tax effect involved in the case is below the monetary limit prescribed by the Hon'ble CBDT, New Delhi vide instruction no. 03/2018 dated

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