THE DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

1), it did not fall within the definition of mining. Accordingly, it was submitted that the exclusion of such digging out of the Mines Act of India, which govern mining and quarrying in India, showed the intention of the legislature to keep the small diggings out of the purview. Thus, small excavations by brick-kilns could not be brought within

STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, THE MALL ROAD, KANPUR ,KANPUR vs. DY. CIT(TDS), KANPUR, KANPUR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.186/Lkw/2022 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 State Bank Of India Zonal Office, The Mall Road, Kanpur, Up-208001 Tan: Knps02318B . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tds, Kanpur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent & आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.187/Lkw/2022 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 State Bank Of India Overseas Branch, 15/54B, Civil Lines, Kanpur, Up-208001 Tan: Knps01627D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tds, Kanpur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Sk Sharma [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09/07/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; These Twin Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against The Separate Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045081675(1) & 1045081558(1) Both Dt. 31/08/2022 Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’ In Short] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’ In Short] Confirming The Order Dt. 21/03/2018 Passed U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-51(1), Nagpur [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2011- 12 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter]

201(1A) of the Act levied on such account. ITAT-Lucknow Page 2 of 6 State Bank of India Vs DCIT(TDS) ITA No.186 & 187/LKW/2022 AY:2011-12 3.3 Aggrieved assessee unsuccessfully contested the recovery of non-deducted TDS and imposition of interest in appeal before Ld. NFAC u/s 246A(1)(ha) of the Act. 3.4 Aggrieved by the order

STATE BANK OF INDIA, OVERSEAS BRANCH, 15/54B, CIVIL LINES, KANPUR,KANPUR vs. DY. CIT(TDS), KANPUR, KANPUR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.186/Lkw/2022 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 State Bank Of India Zonal Office, The Mall Road, Kanpur, Up-208001 Tan: Knps02318B . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tds, Kanpur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent & आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.187/Lkw/2022 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 State Bank Of India Overseas Branch, 15/54B, Civil Lines, Kanpur, Up-208001 Tan: Knps01627D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tds, Kanpur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Sk Sharma [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09/07/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; These Twin Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against The Separate Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045081675(1) & 1045081558(1) Both Dt. 31/08/2022 Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’ In Short] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’ In Short] Confirming The Order Dt. 21/03/2018 Passed U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-51(1), Nagpur [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2011- 12 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter]

201(1A) of the Act levied on such account. ITAT-Lucknow Page 2 of 6 State Bank of India Vs DCIT(TDS) ITA No.186 & 187/LKW/2022 AY:2011-12 3.3 Aggrieved assessee unsuccessfully contested the recovery of non-deducted TDS and imposition of interest in appeal before Ld. NFAC u/s 246A(1)(ha) of the Act. 3.4 Aggrieved by the order

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

1 (Del). the ld. CIT(A) held that in the case of the assessee, the purpose of accumulation of setting apart the income to attain the objects showed a lack of application of mind and specificity as prescribed in section 11(2) of the Act. He, therefore, held that if the contention of the assessee were to be accepted

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

1 (Del). the ld. CIT(A) held that in the case of the assessee, the purpose of accumulation of setting apart the income to attain the objects showed a lack of application of mind and specificity as prescribed in section 11(2) of the Act. He, therefore, held that if the contention of the assessee were to be accepted

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

1 (Del). the ld. CIT(A) held that in the case of the assessee, the purpose of accumulation of setting apart the income to attain the objects showed a lack of application of mind and specificity as prescribed in section 11(2) of the Act. He, therefore, held that if the contention of the assessee were to be accepted

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

1 (Del). the ld. CIT(A) held that in the case of the assessee, the purpose of accumulation of setting apart the income to attain the objects showed a lack of application of mind and specificity as prescribed in section 11(2) of the Act. He, therefore, held that if the contention of the assessee were to be accepted

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

1 (Del). the ld. CIT(A) held that in the case of the assessee, the purpose of accumulation of setting apart the income to attain the objects showed a lack of application of mind and specificity as prescribed in section 11(2) of the Act. He, therefore, held that if the contention of the assessee were to be accepted

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 created a demand of Rs.1,34,035/- under section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act. The relevant

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 created a demand of Rs.1,34,035/- under section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act. The relevant

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

section I.T.A. No.76, 22, 304 & 305/Lkw/2017 19 201(1). This amount is confirmed. The interest u/s 201(1A) determined by the TDS

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

section I.T.A. No.76, 22, 304 & 305/Lkw/2017 19 201(1). This amount is confirmed. The interest u/s 201(1A) determined by the TDS

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

section I.T.A. No.76, 22, 304 & 305/Lkw/2017 19 201(1). This amount is confirmed. The interest u/s 201(1A) determined by the TDS

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

section I.T.A. No.76, 22, 304 & 305/Lkw/2017 19 201(1). This amount is confirmed. The interest u/s 201(1A) determined by the TDS

M/S MOTOR & GENERAL SALES LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Motor & General Sales V. Income Tax Officer Ltd (Tds)-Ii 11, M. G. Marg, Hazratganj, Commissioner Of Income Lucknow-226001. Tax (Appeals-Ii), Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Lknmo0336A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Ca Respondent By: Shri S. H. Usmani, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 06 11 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02 02 2026 O R D E R

section 201(1)/201(1A) of the I. T. Act, 1961 as done by the Assessing Officer. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any or all grounds of appeal at any time before and during the course of the hearing.” 2. The facts of the case are that a survey/verification u/s 133A

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

1 (Del). the ld. CIT(A) held that in the case of the assessee, the purpose of accumulation of setting apart the income to attain the objects showed a lack of 19 ITA Nos.532 & 533/LKW/2014 ITA Nos.534 & 535/LKW/2014 ITA Nos.21 & 22/LKW/2019 U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad application of mind and specificity as prescribed in section

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 were either remained to be deducted or short deducted in terms of section 194LA of the Act. In view of the aforestated failure, the Ld. AO held the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ for non/short deduction of tax u/s 201(1

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 were either remained to be deducted or short deducted in terms of section 194LA of the Act. In view of the aforestated failure, the Ld. AO held the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ for non/short deduction of tax u/s 201(1

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 were either remained to be deducted or short deducted in terms of section 194LA of the Act. In view of the aforestated failure, the Ld. AO held the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ for non/short deduction of tax u/s 201(1