BHUPENDRA NATH PANDEY,VARANASI vs. ACIT, R - 03, VARANASI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Bhupendra Nath Pandey Assistant Director Of Income 6-159/27, Kashi Enclave V. Tax (Cpc), Centralized Colony, Pahadiya Sarnath, Processing Center , Varanasi-221007, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (The Acit, Range-3, Varanasi, U.P.) Pan:Ajfpp1273J (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of section 43B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in section 43B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special leave petition

M.W.S. & CO.,BHADOHI vs. DY. C.I.T., RANGE - 1, VARANASI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M.W.S. & Co., Naya Bazar V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Road, Bhadohi-221401, Uttar Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Pradesh, India Bengaluru [Jurisdictional Assessing Pan-Aaffm2003E Officer Being Dy./Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Varanasi, U.P. (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of section 43B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in section 43B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special leave petition

M.W.S. & CO.,BHADOHI vs. DY. C.I.T., RANGE - 1, VARANASI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M.W.S. & Co., Naya Bazar V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Road, Bhadohi-221401, Uttar Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Pradesh, India Bengaluru [Jurisdictional Assessing Pan-Aaffm2003E Officer Being Dy./Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Varanasi, U.P. (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of section 43B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in section 43B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special leave petition

LAWKUSH SHARMA,SONEBHADRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3 (5), SONEBHADRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Lawkush Sharma Assistant Director Of Income 14-495, V.V. Colony, V. Tax (Cpc), Centralized Shakti Nagar, Sonebhadra- Processing Center , 231222, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 Pan:Artps9822Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of section 43B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in section 43B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special leave petition

UTKARSH SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD.,VARANASI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Utkarsh Small Finance National E-Assessment Centre, Bank Limited V. Delhi S-24/1-2, First Floor, Mahavir Nagar, Orderly Bazar, Near Mahavir Mandir, Varanasi- 221001, U.P. Pan:Aabcu9355J (Appellant) (Respondent)

condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of section 43B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in section 43B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special leave petition

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 2, VARANASI

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

condone the delay and treat the return as a valid return. Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mousami Choudhury, District Varanasi v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Varanasi Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, a return of income shall be regarded as defective unless all the following conditions are fulfilled, namely :— (a) the annexures, statements

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 02,, VARANASI

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

condone the delay and treat the return as a valid return. Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mousami Choudhury, District Varanasi v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Varanasi Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, a return of income shall be regarded as defective unless all the following conditions are fulfilled, namely :— (a) the annexures, statements

BRIJ BIHARI DUBEY EDUCATIONAL TRUST,GORAKHPUR vs. THE DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2014-15 Brij Bihari Dubey Educational Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner C-251, Budh Vihar, Taramandal, Of Income Tax-Cpc, Gorakhpur-273001, Uttar Pradesh Bangalore Pan-Aabtb7657D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Subhash Chand, Adv & Sh. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2023 O R D E R

1) of the Act dated 27.03.2017 of CPC. Therefore, there was a delay of 1950 days’ in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee filed the application for condonation of delay before the CIT(A) and explained the cause of delay of 1950 days’ that after receiving the intimation under section

ABHISHEK SEWA SANSTHA,CHANDAULI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), LUCKNOW

Accordingly, appeal of the assessee dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Us That Relevant Fact & Correct Position Of Law Has Not Been Considered By Ld. Pcit, Therefore Same Are Discussed In Brief.

section 119(2) of the Income- “1. tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) by Circular NO.2 /2020 [F.No. 197/55/2018-ITA-I] dated 03.01.2020 authorized the Commissioners of Income-tax to admit applications of condonation of delay

THE SPRINGER EDUCATION FOUNDATION,,GORAKHPUR vs. CIT (E), LUCKNOW

condonation of delay in filing the application for grant of exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the act by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) To that extent respondent No. 1

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (1),, VARANASI vs. PROMINENT DATAMATICS MARKETING PVT. LTD., , VARANASI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condoning the delay citing the reasons for the delay in filing before the Delhi benches, if so advised. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 9. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.09.2023. (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 26th September, 2023. 8. In view of the above discussion, I find that after the judgement

SURYA CHARITABLE TRUST,,VARANASI vs. CIT (E), LUCKNOW

condonation of delay supported by Affidavit of Shri Laxmi Kant Pandey , Managing Trustee of the assessee. The reason stipulated in this affidavit is that the impugned order dated 16.06.2017 passed by ld. CIT(E) was duly received by Accountant of the assessee namely Mr. Harsh Agarwal on 26.06.2017, but the accountant misplaced the said order by wrongly tagging with some

BANKA ATITHI BHAWAN TRUST,,GORAKHPUR vs. CIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17 Banka Atithibhawan Trust, Commissioner Of Income-Tax C/O Banka Atithibhawan, V. (Exemptions), Maya Bazar, Gorakhpur- 5Th Floor, Tc-46, Vibhutikhand, 273001, U.P. Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010, U.P. Pan:Aaatb8576G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Ashishbansal, Advocate Respondent By: Shriamalendunath Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2023

1) ) refusing to condone delay in filing of Form No. 10B, for assessment year 2016- 17 . We have heard both the parties in Open Courtproceedings through physical hearing mode. Assessment Year: 2016-17 Banka AtithiBhawan Trust, Gorakhpur v. CIT(E), Lucknow 2. At the outset ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this appeal is not maintainable with Income

SHRI PRAKASH YADAV,BALLIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD - 2(4), BALLIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2012-13 Shri Prakash Yadav, Income Tax Officer, Rampur, Boha, Akhar, V. Ward-2(4), Ballia-277401, Uttar Pradesh Ballia-277401, U.P. Pan:Agvpy3320Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

1. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) was not justified to dismiss the appeal by invoked the provision of section 249(4)(b) of the income tax Act through the appellant is a agriculturist and except the agricultural income having no any other source of income.Hence the agricultural income has exempt from the tax, hence the assessee

SMT. ANITA AWASTHI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 3(5), SONEBHADRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Anita Awasthi, Ito, Ward-3(5), 1142, Block-36, V. Income Tax Office, Sonebhadra, Rangoli Gardens, Uttar Pradesh Kanakpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302021 Pan:Acbpa9520E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271(1)(b) of the 1961 Act , vide penalty order dated 5th June, 2018 passed by the AO. 4. Aggrieved by penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(b) vide penalty order dated 05.06.2018 , the assessee filed first appeal before CIT(A) , and submitted as under: "The appellant, Anita Awasthi was regularly filing her returns of income from

INDRA NARAYAN TRIPATHI,GORAKHPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 02,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 52C(2)(sic.50C(2)) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Learned CIT(A) has erred and acted illegally in confirming the same. 2. Because the assessment order is bad both on facts and law and not maintainable.” 2.1. The assessee has also raised additional grounds of appeal, which reads as under : “1. Because it is fully explained that

UMESH KUMAR JAISWAL,KUSHINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), KUSHINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2017-18 Umesh Kumar Jaiswal, V. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Ramagya Prasad & Sons, Ward-2(4), Kushinagar Jataha Road, Padrauna, Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh Pan-Acdpj3729Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri. Ashish Bansal, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.06.2022

delay of seven days in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. Because of the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 4,07,517/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on the basis of turnover of Rs. 18,97,16,297/- as erroneously estimated

PRATAP DIAGNOSTIC CENTER,AZAMGARH vs. ITO (TDS),, AZAMGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, respectively. There is a delay in filing the two appeals by the assessee. The learned AR of the assessee has explained that initially the assessee has filed the appeal in ITA No. 43/VNS/2020 against the composite order

PRATAP DIAGNOSTIC CENTER,AZAMGARH vs. ITO (TDS), AZAMGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, respectively. There is a delay in filing the two appeals by the assessee. The learned AR of the assessee has explained that initially the assessee has filed the appeal in ITA No. 43/VNS/2020 against the composite order