INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

3 of Form No.10. Furthermore, he noted that the original Form No. 10-B furnished with the return had contained a note that there is no income accumulated or set apart for specified purposes under section 11(2). Thus, he held that the assessee had failed to meet the requirements of section 11(2)(a) of the Act and therefore

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

3 of Form No.10. Furthermore, he noted that the original Form No. 10-B furnished with the return had contained a note that there is no income accumulated or set apart for specified purposes under section 11(2). Thus, he held that the assessee had failed to meet the requirements of section 11(2)(a) of the Act and therefore

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

Accordingly all four additional grounds filed by the revenue in Appeal numbers 532 & 533 of 2014, stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

3 of Form No. 10. Furthermore, he noted that the original Form No. 10-B furnished with the return had contained a note that there is no income accumulated or set apart for specified purposes under section 11(2). Thus, he held that the assessee had failed to meet the requirements of section 11

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

3 of Form No.10. Furthermore, he noted that the original Form No. 10-B furnished with the return had contained a note that there is no income accumulated or set apart for specified purposes under section 11(2). Thus, he held that the assessee had failed to meet the requirements of section 11(2)(a) of the Act and therefore

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS under section 194C of the Act had been deducted. Therefore the nature of the activities being conducted by the assessee was akin to the activities of the builders, developers and contractors. Therefore, the ld. AO held that since the amount of receipts on account of such activities was in excess of Rs.25 Lacs, the assessee

DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MORADABAD

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS under section 194C of the Act had been deducted. Therefore the nature of the activities being conducted by the assessee was akin to the activities of the builders, developers and contractors. Therefore, the ld. AO held that since the amount of receipts on account of such activities was in excess of Rs.25 Lacs, the assessee

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS under section 194C of the Act had been deducted. Therefore the nature of the activities being conducted by the assessee was akin to the activities of the builders, developers and contractors. Therefore, the ld. AO held that since the amount of receipts on account of such activities was in excess of Rs.25 Lacs, the assessee

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS under section 194C of the Act had been deducted. Therefore the nature of the activities being conducted by the assessee was akin to the activities of the builders, developers and contractors. Therefore, the ld. AO held that since the amount of receipts on account of such activities was in excess of Rs.25 Lacs, the assessee

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

11% on\nturnover after rejecting the book result shown in Section 145(3) of the Act,\nwithout appreciating that the trading results shown by the assessee were\nfound open to verification and were unreliable.\n\n6. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition of Rs.1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

11 can be denied only if assessee trust has provided any of the following benefits to the persons covered in section 13(3):- Page 23 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 a. Funds of the trust has been given on loan without adequate security or interest or both; b. Any property of the trust

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

11 can be denied only if assessee trust has provided any of the following benefits to the persons covered in section 13(3):- Page 23 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year:2015-16 & 16-17 a. Funds of the trust has been given on loan without adequate security or interest or both; b. Any property of the trust

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

11. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 17,04,441/- on account of interest on late deposit of TDS. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 5 12. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in wrongly setting aside the issue regarding verification

LUCKNOW EVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. I.T.O., LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

11. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 17,04,441/- on account of interest on late deposit of TDS. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 5 12. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in wrongly setting aside the issue regarding verification

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

11. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 17,04,441/- on account of interest on late deposit of TDS. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 5 12. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in wrongly setting aside the issue regarding verification

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

11. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 17,04,441/- on account of interest on late deposit of TDS. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 5 12. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in wrongly setting aside the issue regarding verification

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

11. The Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 17,04,441/- on account of interest on late deposit of TDS. I.T.A. Nos.185,186,163,164,439/Lkw/2019 5 12. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in wrongly setting aside the issue regarding verification

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

TDS provision under section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is\nestimated.\n\n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,000/- being disallowances of expenses\nunder section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is estimated.\n\n5. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow

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

TDS on payment of Rs. 3074000 @ 30% i.e. 922200/- in violation of the provision of section 40a(ia) In relevant year Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 9,22,200/- on account of payment of such expenses on which tax was not deducted aggregating Rs. 30,74,000/- as reported by Auditor in TAR and on other side estimated