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

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

condonation of delay in\nfiling of Form No.10B was not furnished, and the respective finding of both the lower\nauthorities being factually incorrect, the assessee's claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act\ndeserves to be accepted.\n8\nBECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without\nprejudice to each other.\n9.\nBECAUSE the order appealed against

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)

condonation of delay in\nfiling of Form No.10B was not furnished, and the respective finding of both the lower\nauthorities being factually incorrect, the assessee's claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act\ndeserves to be accepted.\n\n8 BECAUSE each ground taken in appeal is mutually exclusive and without\nprejudice to each other.\n\n9. BECAUSE the order

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

86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 12 and 13 read with first Proviso to section 2(15) on the ground that the appellant is hit by the provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961.” C.O.No.02/Lkw/2020 “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in having failed to consider the provisions contained

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

86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 12 and 13 read with first Proviso to section 2(15) on the ground that the appellant is hit by the provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961.” C.O.No.02/Lkw/2020 “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in having failed to consider the provisions contained

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

86 (UP AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD) 12 and 13 read with first Proviso to section 2(15) on the ground that the appellant is hit by the provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) of Income-tax Act, 1961.” C.O.No.02/Lkw/2020 “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in having failed to consider the provisions contained

DIVESH KUMAR,BAREILLY vs. ACIT CENTRAL, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Divesh Kumar Shri Kharak Singh V. Rawat, 19, Shishgarh, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh-243105. Dc/Acit-Cent, Bareilly Office Of The Acit, Central Circle Dc/Acit Cent Bareilly-1-243001 Pan:Cfdpk1712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 19 11 2024

delay the tax proceedings. Despite being provided enough opportunity, the assessee chose to remain silent and decided not to bring any material on record. Hence, the assessing officer has left with no other option but to complete the assessment proceedings in the case of assessee on the basis of factual material available on record. 5.1 Observation.. On examination

NOMAN HUSSAIN,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-3(2), HARDOI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condoning the delay. 4. Similarly, in the penalty proceedings, the AO had imposed penalty of Rs.1,61,86,626/- under section

NOMAN HUSAIN,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-3(2), HARDOI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condoning the delay. 4. Similarly, in the penalty proceedings, the AO had imposed penalty of Rs.1,61,86,626/- under section

VIBHA SINGH,BASTI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BASTI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from wholesale trading of tyres. The assessee filed her return of income on 16/02/2018 declaring total income of Rs.7,68,360/-. The case of the assessee

RAMANAND MAURYA,ICHAULI,BARABANKI,UP vs. ITO-5(5) BARABANKI-2, BARABANKI UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from wholesale trading of tyres. The assessee filed her return of income on 16/02/2018 declaring total income of Rs.7,68,360/-. The case of the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KANPUR vs. M.K.U PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

delay in filing the cross objection is condoned. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return of income on 30.09.2011 declaring a book profit of Rs.5,20,24,121/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was completed on an income of Rs.5,86

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)

delay is condoned and the case is admitted for decision on merits. AY-2023-24 Gallant Foundation (formerly known as Govind Foundation), Gorakhpur 6. Shri P.K. Kapoor, C.A. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. AR’) appeared on behalf of the assessee. It was submitted that the ld. CIT(Exemption) was in error on her findings that the expenditure

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)

delay is condoned and the case is admitted for decision on merits. AY-2023-24 Gallant Foundation (formerly known as Govind Foundation), Gorakhpur 6. Shri P.K. Kapoor, C.A. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. AR’) appeared on behalf of the assessee. It was submitted that the ld. CIT(Exemption) was in error on her findings that the expenditure

RAM ADHAREY,SANT KABBER NAGAR vs. ITO, BASTI NEW, BASTI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. (C) The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case, the assessee filed his return of income on 06/09/2017 declaring total income at Rs.6,86,520/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order under section

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

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

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

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

86,690/- is \nalso liable to be deleted. \n\n2. Because the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. \n20,07,400/- made on account of difference in investment of cost of \nconstruction of the property at 57, Laxmanpuri, Lucknow as estimated by \nthe Valuation Officer and entered by the appellant without properly \nlooking into