MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

131 cannot be the sole basis for addition and appellant has heavily relied upon the judgment in the case of Assessing Officer v. S. KhaderKhan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) that has been upheld by apex court in Assessing Officer v. S. KhaderKhan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC). After carefully considering the argument of the Assessing Officer. Counsel

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

131 cannot be the sole basis for addition and appellant has heavily relied upon the judgment in the case of Assessing Officer v. S. KhaderKhan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) that has been upheld by apex court in Assessing Officer v. S. KhaderKhan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC). After carefully considering the argument of the Assessing Officer. Counsel

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

TDS verification, the Assessing Officer found that the employees of the bank had undertaken foreign travel as part of the Leave Travel Concession. The provisions of section 10(5) of the Act allows exemption in respect of the value of travel concession granted by the employer in connection with his proceeding on leave to any place in India. Since

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

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

TDS verification was conducted at the branch of the\nbank during which, it was found that the bank had defaulted in deducting taxes at\nsource on the leave travel reimbursements granted to its employees as part of their\nsalary. The employees were granted tax exemption u/s 10(5) of the Act in respect of\nthis Leave Travel Concession/ reimbursements. However

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

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

TDS verification was conducted at the branch of the\nbank during which, it was found that the bank had defaulted in deducting taxes at\nsource on the leave travel reimbursements granted to its employees as part of their\nsalary. The employees were granted tax exemption u/s 10(5) of the Act in respect of\nthis Leave Travel Concession/ reimbursements. However

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

TDS verification was conducted at the branch of the\nbank during which, it was found that the bank had defaulted in deducting taxes at\nsource on the leave travel reimbursements granted to its employees as part of their\nsalary. The employees were granted tax exemption u/s 10(5) of the Act in respect of\nthis Leave Travel Concession/ reimbursements. However

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

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

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

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

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

131\n17,03,38,176\n10.13\n11%\n10.13%\n2022-23\n2,82,59,71,973\n28,50,48,173\n11%\n9.68%\nAddition on extra profit\ndeleted.\nThat during the course of search proceeding in statement recorded u/s \n132(4), dated 05/06.02.2022 assessee admitted following –\nThat percentage of net profit shown of M/s Alok Construction is \napproximately 6% of its turnover

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

TDS can not held to be non disclosure of the full particulars. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the notice under Section 147 of the Act to the petitioner stands vitiated in non compliance or fulfilment of the second condition as laid down in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act.” Shri Anil Kumar

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

TDS can not held to be non disclosure of the full particulars. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the notice under Section 147 of the Act to the petitioner stands vitiated in non compliance or fulfilment of the second condition as laid down in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act.” Shri Anil Kumar

LODGE OF HARMONY NO,438EC,KANPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Lodge Of Harmony V. The Assessing Officer No.438Ec Exemption Ward C/O P.C. Agarwal Kanpur 15/296, Govind Niwas 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: 09 05 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 08 2024 O R D E R

TDS, advance tax and self-assessment tax). However, the Central Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore, while processing the return ITA No.343/LKW/2023 Page 2 of 7 of income, computed the tax liability at Rs.4,62,720/- and raised a further demand of Rs.2,12,460/-. 2.1 Aggrieved, the assessee approached the ld. First Appellate Authority, challenging the tax demand and submitted before

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

131(31)/81- TP(Pt.)] dated 11.1.1982, wherein it has been specifically provided that in case of registered Societies, trade and professional associations, social and sports clubs, charitable or religious trusts, etc., where the members or trustees are not entitled to any share in the income of the association of persons, provisions of section 167A of the Act will

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

TDS. 13. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in wrongly setting aside the issue regarding verification of following expenses to the file of Ld. Assessing Officer despite of the fact that all the bill/ voucher were produced before him: a.Audit fee of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- b.Flood Controland Development expenses

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

TDS. 13. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in wrongly setting aside the issue regarding verification of following expenses to the file of Ld. Assessing Officer despite of the fact that all the bill/ voucher were produced before him: a.Audit fee of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- b.Flood Controland Development expenses

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

TDS. 13. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in wrongly setting aside the issue regarding verification of following expenses to the file of Ld. Assessing Officer despite of the fact that all the bill/ voucher were produced before him: a.Audit fee of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- b.Flood Controland Development expenses

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

TDS. 13. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in wrongly setting aside the issue regarding verification of following expenses to the file of Ld. Assessing Officer despite of the fact that all the bill/ voucher were produced before him: a.Audit fee of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- b.Flood Controland Development expenses