VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW. vs. DY. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW., LUCKNOW

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

2) of the IT Act. Further, we find that the assessee requested for condonation of delay on the ground that the Assistant Manager (Accounts) forgot to hand over the papers to the advocate and he also resigned from the service of the company on 26/05/2016. The learned CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s request for condonation of delay in filing

VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW.

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

2) of the IT Act. Further, we find that the assessee requested for condonation of delay on the ground that the Assistant Manager (Accounts) forgot to hand over the papers to the advocate and he also resigned from the service of the company on 26/05/2016. The learned CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s request for condonation of delay in filing

VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW. vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW.

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

2) of the IT Act. Further, we find that the assessee requested for condonation of delay on the ground that the Assistant Manager (Accounts) forgot to hand over the papers to the advocate and he also resigned from the service of the company on 26/05/2016. The learned CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s request for condonation of delay in filing

J.P. MOTOR RPIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2018-19 J.P. Motor Pvt. Ltd. V. The Acit 313/22, Khun Khun Ji Road Range 1 Chowk, Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aabcj6763H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Devashish Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 07 2022 O R D E R

2. There is a delay of 170 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed an application, dated 21.7.2022, for condonation of delay, stating therein that the main reason for the delay in filing of the appeal was that the main Accountant of the assessee Company, Shri Saroj Kumar Maurya, who looked after the day-to-day affairs

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

M/S AVADH HOSPITAL AND HEART CENTRE,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-6, LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW- NEW

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

2. There is a delay of 132 days in filing of the appeal. The Assessee has filed an application dated 10.5.2022 for condonation of delay, stating therein that the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) was received on 30.10.2021 and the due date for filing the appeal was 29.12.2021; that however, the appeal was filed

M/S. AVADH HOSPITAL AND HEART CENTRE,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT-6, LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

2. There is a delay of 132 days in filing of the appeal. The Assessee has filed an application dated 10.5.2022 for condonation of delay, stating therein that the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) was received on 30.10.2021 and the due date for filing the appeal was 29.12.2021; that however, the appeal was filed

SHRI NARESH KUMAR YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(5), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Naresh Kumar Yadav V. Ito-1(5) Vill. & Post Madiyaon Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aebpy8040D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Prashant Kumar Verma, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 07 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Lucknow, Dated 11.10.2019, For Assessment Year 2011- 12, Raising The Following Original Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because, The Whole Assessment Order Impugned In The Present Appeal Stands Wholly Vitiated As There Can Be No Reason To Believe That Income Has Escaped Assessment U/S 147/144 On The Ground Of Mere Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Amounting To Rs.12,98,000/- Therefore, The Entire Assessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Held As Nullity & Without Jurisdiction. 2. Because, The Assessment Order Impugned In The Present Appeal Stands Wholly Vitiated As There Can Be No Reason To Believe On The Basis Of Air Information That Income Has Escaped Assessment U/S 147/144 On The Ground Of Mere Cash Deposits In Bank Account Amounting Rs.12,98,000/-. Therefore, The Entire Assessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Held As Nullity & Without Jurisdiction.

condone the delay. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Class IV Government employee, working in the Indian Railways. For the year under consideration, the assessee did not file return of income, as his income was below the taxable limit. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. As per information available with

SYED MOHAMMAD MAYAR HUSAIN RIZVI,PANCHKULA vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALURU, BANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

90,51,915/- which was revised on 10/09/2012 declaring total income of Rs.16,54,877/-. The Assessing Officer processed the original return filed by the assessee and passed assessment order u/s 143(1) of the Act and created a demand of Rs.76,62,535/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned

SRI SAINATH ASSOCIATES,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT-6, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 253(3) of IT Act. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned. Being satisfied with the reasons stated in application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal; we condone the delay in filing

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FAIZABAD vs. SMT. SARITA NAINWANI, PROP. M/S. BHOLA PHARMA, FAIZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2011-12 The Dy. Cit V. Smt. Sarita Nainwani Circle, Faizabad Prop. M/S Bhola Pharma 3/2/18, Mukeri Tola Faizabad Tan/Pan:Ahtpn1830B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Sarita Nainwani V. The Income Tax Officer-Ii Prop. M/S Bhola Pharma Faizabad 3/2/18, Mukeri Tola Faizabad Tan/Pan:Ahtpn1830B (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Assessee By : Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 25 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 08 2022 O R D E R

90 days; and that therefore, the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 3. In view of the above facts, we find that there was sufficient reason for delay in filing of the appeal. Accordingly, we condone the delay. 4. The Revenue has raised the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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

90 days, and the FDs keep\nrolling over for different LCs. The assessee was, therefore, asked to submit specific\ndetails of Bank Guarantee with accrued interest on FD allocable to the eligible\nunits.\nIn response, the assessee made the following submissions:\nImpact on profit under section 801A by direct allocation of Interest Income\nfrom FDR kept as Margin Money

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(4), KANPUR vs. SMT. SAROJ GOENKA, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

2 Kindly refer to the above. In this connection, it is submitted that the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kanpur in the case of Smt. Saroj Goenka for A.Y. 2014-15 has been received in the O/o the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Kanpur on 14.12.2018 and therefore, the last date of filing of Departmental

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

In the result, appeals vide I

90 days, and the FDs keep\nrolling over for different LCs. The assessee was, therefore, asked to submit specific\ndetails of Bank Guarantee with accrued interest on FD allocable to the eligible\nunits.\n\nIn response, the assessee made the following submissions:\n\nImpact on profit under section 801A by direct allocation of Interest Income\nfrom FDR kept as Margin

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

RADHA KAMAL UPADHYAY,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-6, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 253(3) of IT Act. The application for condonation of delay is supported by an affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative for Revenue did not express any objection to the delay being condoned. Being satisfied with the reasons stated in I.T.A. No.616/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 2 application seeking condonation of delay in filing of this

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

90% has been shown as sundry debtors. If we include 2,66,000/- received at the fag end of the financial year then figure of sundry debtors increases substantially, this fact is not acceptable unless supporting documents are provided. Further, it has also been noted that Mahindra Bolero bearing registration no. UKO6 AN 4195 which was intercepted is registered

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

90 days, and the FDs keep\nrolling over for different LCs. The assessee was, therefore, asked to submit specific\ndetails of Bank Guarantee with accrued interest on FD allocable to the eligible\nunits.\nIn response, the assessee made the following submissions:\nImpact on profit under section 801A by direct allocation of Interest Income\nfrom FDR kept as Margin Money