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. 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

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. 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

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

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

e) and clause 0 which is consequential in nature. It is also proposed to omit the second proviso to the said section. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2004 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2004-2005 and subsequent years." 42. The rationale for introduction of Section 43B was explained by this court

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

E R\n\nPER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.\n(A) For the sake of convenience and brevity these appeals and Cross\nObjections (“COs” for short) pertaining to the same assessee are hereby\ndisposed of through this consolidated order. Grounds taken in these\nappeals and COs are as under:\n\nRevenue by Shri H. S. Usmani, CIT (D.R.)\nAssessee by Shri

MR.SHITIJ DHAWAN,KANPUR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 Mr. Shitij Dhawan V. The Assessing Officer 122/235, Fazalganj Special Range Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Acqpd3380G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

TDS; that due to switchover of the Income Tax Website from TCS to Infosys, many glitches in the e-portal of the Department have occurred, for which extension of time has also been granted by the CBDT from time to time; and that therefore, there being no deliberate intention on the part of the assessee, but the delay in filing

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,, LUCKNOW

22 4 (2003) 5 SCC 590 concerned with computation of the\ndeduction, which is at a stage prior to allowing the deduction so\ncomputed. He submitted that there is no dispute that the computation\nof deduction is only from the eligible business. The claim of the\nAssessee, as accepted by the Appellate Authority, is that there is no\nrestriction

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide I

22 4 (2003) 5 SCC 590 concerned with computation of the\ndeduction, which is at a stage prior to allowing the deduction so\ncomputed. He submitted that there is no dispute that the computation\nof deduction is only from the eligible business. The claim of the\nAssessee, as accepted by the Appellate Authority, is that there is no\nrestriction

TINICH SAHKARI GANNA SAMITI LIMITED,BASTI vs. ITO, , BASTI

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

e-filed its return of income on 14.01.2016 and whole of its business income, amounting to Rs.35,57,576/-, was claimed as exempt under section 80P of the Act. In this regard, after considering the submissions made on behalf of the assessee, the AO placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgar

TINICH SAHKARI GANNA SAMITI LIMITED,BASTII vs. ITO, BASTI

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

e-filed its return of income on 14.01.2016 and whole of its business income, amounting to Rs.35,57,576/-, was claimed as exempt under section 80P of the Act. In this regard, after considering the submissions made on behalf of the assessee, the AO placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgar

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

E R PER BENCH: These appeals have been filed by different assessees against separate orders of learned CIT(A) dated 09/11/2016, 24/10/2016, 09/02/2017 and 09/12/2017 respectively. Similar grounds have been taken in all the appeals and these were heard together therefore, for the sake of convenience a consolidated order is being passed. For the sake of completeness, the grounds taken

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

E R PER BENCH: These appeals have been filed by different assessees against separate orders of learned CIT(A) dated 09/11/2016, 24/10/2016, 09/02/2017 and 09/12/2017 respectively. Similar grounds have been taken in all the appeals and these were heard together therefore, for the sake of convenience a consolidated order is being passed. For the sake of completeness, the grounds taken

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

E R PER BENCH: These appeals have been filed by different assessees against separate orders of learned CIT(A) dated 09/11/2016, 24/10/2016, 09/02/2017 and 09/12/2017 respectively. Similar grounds have been taken in all the appeals and these were heard together therefore, for the sake of convenience a consolidated order is being passed. For the sake of completeness, the grounds taken