STATE BANK OF INDIA, OVERSEAS BRANCH,KANPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

TDS) on the ground that the assessee had failed to deduct tax\nat source in respect of reimbursements of LTC/LFC paid to the employees\nfor travelling abroad. As the reimbursements of LTC/LFC in respect of\nforeign travel of the employee is not exempt

STATE BANK OF INDIA, OVERSEAS BRANCH,KANPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

TDS) on the ground that the assessee had failed to deduct tax\nat source in respect of reimbursements of LTC/LFC paid to the employees\nfor travelling abroad. As the reimbursements of LTC/LFC in respect of\nforeign travel of the employee is not exempt

STATE BANK OF INDIA,,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

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

TDS on LTC for visits by the employees to foreign countries. The Assessing Officer has held that the LTC u/s 10(5) is exempt

S.B.I RBO III (ADMIN OFFICE),KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

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

TDS on LTC for visits by the employees to foreign countries. The Assessing Officer has held that the LTC u/s 10(5) is exempt

STATE BANK OF INDIA, FUND SETTLEMENT OFFICE,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)-II, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

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

TDS on LTC for visits by the employees to foreign countries. The Assessing Officer has held that the LTC u/s 10(5) is exempt

STATE BANK OF INDIA,,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

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

TDS on LTC for visits by the employees to foreign countries. The Assessing Officer has held that the LTC u/s 10(5) is exempt

THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JOINT ORGANISATION ,LUCKNOW vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

Appeals stand allowed accordingly

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.125 To 127/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 The Addl. District Magistrate, (Land Acquisition) Joint Organisation, Room No-42, Lucknow, Up-226001 Tan: Lkna07354E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

TDS at the rate specified therein. The proviso to aforestated section clearly exempts the payer from attracting any liability to deduct

THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JOINT ORGANISATION ,LUCKNOW vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

Appeals stand allowed accordingly

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.125 To 127/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 The Addl. District Magistrate, (Land Acquisition) Joint Organisation, Room No-42, Lucknow, Up-226001 Tan: Lkna07354E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

TDS at the rate specified therein. The proviso to aforestated section clearly exempts the payer from attracting any liability to deduct

THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JOINT ORGANISATION ,LUCKNOW vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

Appeals stand allowed accordingly

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.125 To 127/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 The Addl. District Magistrate, (Land Acquisition) Joint Organisation, Room No-42, Lucknow, Up-226001 Tan: Lkna07354E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

TDS at the rate specified therein. The proviso to aforestated section clearly exempts the payer from attracting any liability to deduct

BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, ADMINISTRETIVE OFFICE,KANPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

TDS) on the ground that the assessee had failed to deduct tax at source in respect of reimbursements of LTC/LFC paid to the employees for travelling abroad. As the reimbursements of LTC/LFC in respect of foreign travel of the employee is not exempt

STETE BANK OF INDIA, SMECCC CODE-5030,KANPUR vs. ITO (TDS)-, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

TDS)-II on the ground that the assessee is in default for non-deduction of tax at source in respect of payment of Rs.2,11,598/- made to the employees on account of LFC for travelling abroad. As the reimbursements of LTC/LFC in respect of foreign travel of the employee is not exempt

STATE BANK OF INDIA, SMECCC-CODE-5030,KANPUR vs. ITO(TDS)-2, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

TDS)-II on the ground that the assessee is in default for non-deduction of tax at source in respect of payment of Rs.2,11,598/- made to the employees on account of LFC for travelling abroad. As the reimbursements of LTC/LFC in respect of foreign travel of the employee is not exempt

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

exempt from Income-tax is not correct. This ground of appeal is dismissed. 5.4 Ground No.4, 5 & 6: These grounds related to TDS

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

exempt from Income-tax is not correct. This ground of appeal is dismissed. 5.4 Ground No.4, 5 & 6: These grounds related to TDS

U P SUGAR MILLS COGEN ASSOCIATION,LUCKNOW vs. AO EXEMPTION CIRCLE , LUCKNOW

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.145/Lkw/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Up Sugar Mills Cogen Association, 403, Chintels House,16-Station Road, Lucknow, Up-226001 Pan: Aaatu2238A . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

exemption u/s 11 of the Act and (b) disallowed the claim for deduction of expenses incurred / applied for its main object against the income earned/accrued to it and consequently determined the net tax liability after giving credit TDS

JIL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS was\nclaimed as deduction from the tax payable\nVEDIEICATION\n\n(B) As regards the addition of Rs.64,88,451/- made by the Assessing\nOfficer under section 14A of the Act, the learned A.R. for the assessee\nsubmitted that there was no exempt

LODGE OF HARMONY NO.438EC,KANPUR vs. A O EXAMPTION WARD, KANPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 Lodge Of Harmony No.438Ec V. The Assessing Officer C/O P.C. Agarwal Exemption Ward 15/296, Govind Niwas Kanpur Civil Lines, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaatl2285Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R

exemption to the assessee and not charge Tax at Page 5 of 6 the Maximum Marginal Rate. Accordingly, grounds No.1 to 3 of the assessee are allowed. 7.1 Vide ground No.4, the assessee is aggrieved by the orders of the authorities below in not allowing the credit of TDS

LEKHESHWAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,AYODHYA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2016-17 Lekheshwar Educational Trust V. Income Tax Officer Lekheshwar Complex Exemption Ward Naka By Pass Lucknow Faizabad (Ayodhya) Pan:Aaatl9836B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 09 2024 O R D E R

TDS Penalty” of Rs.16,970/- and claimed it as Revenue Expenditure, which was also disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.24,06,840/- and issued computation sheet and demand notice at zero tax. 3. Thereafter, vide order dated 26.7.2019, the ITO (Exemption