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

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION ,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

condoned the delay and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his argument. 4. Since a common issue relating to levy of fees u/s. 234E of the Act is involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Notice in this case was sent to the assessee. Common grounds involved

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

condoned the delay and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his argument. 4. Since a common issue relating to levy of fees u/s. 234E of the Act is involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Notice in this case was sent to the assessee. Common grounds involved

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

condoned the delay and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his argument. 4. Since a common issue relating to levy of fees u/s. 234E of the Act is involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Notice in this case was sent to the assessee. Common grounds involved

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

condoned the delay and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his argument. 4. Since a common issue relating to levy of fees u/s. 234E of the Act is involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Notice in this case was sent to the assessee. Common grounds involved

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TUBEWELL DIVISION,BARABANKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

condoned the delay and ld. AR was asked to proceed with his argument. 4. Since a common issue relating to levy of fees u/s. 234E of the Act is involved in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Notice in this case was sent to the assessee. Common grounds involved

TIRLOCHAN SINGH,PILIBHIT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), PILIBHIT

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Tirlochan Singh V. The Income Tax Officer Post Kadher Choura Ward 2(5) Rampur Kone, Puranpur Pilibhit Pilibhit Tan/Pan:Damps7604M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 12 2024 O R D E R

83,000 – 3,04,226) as unexplained income of the assessee under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The AO, accordingly, completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.10

SHRI RAMESH SINGH RANA,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.576/Lkw/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Ramesh Singh Rana V. Dcit Range-4 3-B, Talkatora Road, Rajaji 5-Ashok Marg, Aaykar Puram, Lucknow-226017. Bhawan, Lucknow- 226001. Pan:Aggpr0749B अपीलाथ"/(Appellant) ""यथ"/(Respondent) अपीलाथ" "क और से/Appellant By: None ""यथ" "क और से /Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई "क तार"ख / Date Of Hearing: 08 04 2025 घोषणा "क तार"ख/ Date Of 17 04 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R Per Anadee Nath Misshra, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Lucknow Dated 11.06.2019, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for decision on merits. 3. In this case, assessment order dated 29/03/2015 was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short), u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.1

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

M/S CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,LAKHIMPUR-KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-I, LAKHIMPUR -KHERI

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 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 earned on deposits made by it with the banks. The ld. AO after detailed discussions in each case held that the assessee was not eligible

ALOK DADU,MODI NAGAR vs. ADDLJCIT(A)-1, COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2022-23 Alok Dadu V. The Ito-2(4) H. No.310, Gali No.3 Pilibhit Bharampuri Modi Nagar Tan/Pan:Acdod4702B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 12 2024 O R D E R

83,290/- to the income of the assessee. The AO accordingly completed the assessment under section 143(1) of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.28,85,005/-. 3. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority. Subsequently, the appeal was migrated to Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Coimbatore. However, the appeal before

ABHISHEK TRIPATHI,JHINJHAK KANPUR DEHAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), KANPUR, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Abhishek Tripathi V. The Ito Ward No.15, Shankarganj Ward 1(3)(1) Jhinjhak Kanpur Kanpur Dehat (U.P) Tan/Pan:Atjpt8479N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

83,750) to the income of the assessee. The AO completed the assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’), assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.15,080,060/-. 2.1 The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 270A and 271B of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal

JUNAID ALI,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-6(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year 2017-18 Junaid Ali, Vs. Income Tax Officer 6(2), Village Ghaila, Iim Road, Lucknow-New. Near Career Medical College, Lucknow-226020 Pan –Aiwpa 3483D (Appellant) (Respondent)

83,275/- as per computation in point no. 19 of the assessment order. 5- That the learned CIT (Appeals) NFAC erred in confirming the addition made by learned AO of Rs. 10,52,000/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961, which was accounted for in the in our Books of accounts. 6- That the learned CIT (Appeals) NFAC

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

In the result, appeals vide

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

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

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

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

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

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