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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

3) The appellant has filed written submissions gist of which is as under - That the addition of Rs.6,95,21,880.00 is against the facts and laws on the following grounds: (a) The Ld. A.O. was wrong in holding that Section 194C is applicable to the case of the Assessee. (b) The Ld. A.O. was wrong in holding by ignoring

PUSHPENDRA SINGH,RAEBARELI vs. DCIT CIRCLE,, FAIZABAD

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Pushpendra Singh V. Dcit Circle, 680, Amar Nagar, Raebareli Faizabad/National E- (U.P)-229001. Assessment Centre Delhi Pan:Axbps1905L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

TDS of section 194C were not appreciated since such payments are below the threshold limit specified in section 194C and on a due consideration of this fact atone, no dis-allowance of 30% of Rs. 1,20,000/- could have been made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4.1 BECAUSE the "CIT(A)" has erred

KWALITY RESTAURANT,KANPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 Kwality Restaurant V. The Cit(A) 16/97, The Mall Delhi Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaafk8712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.9.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 115 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Which Is Also Supported By An Affidavit. 3. I Have Gone Through The Application For Condonation Of Delay As Well As The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee & Heard The Contention Of The Ld. D.R. On The Issue Of Condonation Of Delay. The Ld. D.R. Has Objected To The Condonatiion Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Is Shifting The Blame Of Delay On Its Counsel. 4. Having Considered The Reasons Explained By The Assessee In The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That The Assessee Has Explained The Cause Of Delay That Due To An Oversight Of The Counsel Of The Assessee, Necessary Steps For Filing

194C are not applicable to payments debited under the head cloth & Uniform in the profit and loss Account. 7. Grounds No. 1 to 3 are regarding addition made on account of Employees’ Contribution towards PF and ESI and paid belatedly. 8. I have heard the ld. D.R. and carefully perused the impugned order

SHRI SUDHANSHU RASTOGI,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri. Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sudhanshu Rastogi V. The Acit 217, Eldeco Green Range 1 Gomti Nagar Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Acfpr9504B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri S. H. Usmani, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 29 11 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 12 2022 O R D E R

TDS. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, at the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. Page 3 of 5 4. Before us, on behalf of the assessee, Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. appeared and on behalf of the Revenue, Shri S. H. Usmani

DR. R.M. LOHIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,LUCKNOW vs. NFAC, , DELHI

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

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

3. That for the year under consideration assessee could not file its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act but the case of the assessee was reopened by 1 Dr. R.M. Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences A.Y. 2019-20 way of issuing notice dated 28.03.2023 u/s 148 of the Act by the office of the Deputy Commissioner