USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

2(14)(iii) deals specifically that agricultural land, which falls under municipal limits, that’s why those are capital assets and capital gains on transfer of such land is chargeable to tax. Said situations of capital gains fall under clause (a) of section 10(37) of the Act. vi. Appellant never claimed exemption from income tax for transfer of agricultural

JAMUNA DEVI NARESH CHANDRA MAHAVIDYALAYA,JALAUN vs. ITO-TDS, KANPUR

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

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

2) amounting to Rs.9,782/- of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assesssee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC on 29.12.2020 and before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that all TDS amounts had been credited to Income Tax Department through Challan within the prescribed period. However, the TDS CPC had levied late filing fee of Rs.14

VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW.

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

TDS deducted as well as the interest there upon is highly excessive, contrary to facts, laws and principles of natural justice and fair play and thus may kindly be ordered to be quashed. 4. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee the assessee company underwent CIRP Proceeding and the Hon'ble NCLT

VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW. vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW.

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

TDS deducted as well as the interest there upon is highly excessive, contrary to facts, laws and principles of natural justice and fair play and thus may kindly be ordered to be quashed. 4. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee the assessee company underwent CIRP Proceeding and the Hon'ble NCLT

VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW. vs. DY. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW., LUCKNOW

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

TDS deducted as well as the interest there upon is highly excessive, contrary to facts, laws and principles of natural justice and fair play and thus may kindly be ordered to be quashed. 4. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee the assessee company underwent CIRP Proceeding and the Hon'ble NCLT

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

TDS), Bareilly passed the orders under section 206C of the I.T. Act, due to default on the part of the assessee in collecting the tax at source (TCS) in respect of Royalty amount received for these six years. The assessee challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer by filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and there was a delay

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

TDS), Bareilly passed the orders under section 206C of the I.T. Act, due to default on the part of the assessee in collecting the tax at source (TCS) in respect of Royalty amount received for these six years. The assessee challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer by filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and there was a delay

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

TDS), Bareilly passed the orders under section 206C of the I.T. Act, due to default on the part of the assessee in collecting the tax at source (TCS) in respect of Royalty amount received for these six years. The assessee challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer by filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and there was a delay

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

TDS), Bareilly passed the orders under section 206C of the I.T. Act, due to default on the part of the assessee in collecting the tax at source (TCS) in respect of Royalty amount received for these six years. The assessee challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer by filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and there was a delay

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

TDS), Bareilly passed the orders under section 206C of the I.T. Act, due to default on the part of the assessee in collecting the tax at source (TCS) in respect of Royalty amount received for these six years. The assessee challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer by filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and there was a delay

THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COLLECTORATE,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

TDS), Bareilly passed the orders under section 206C of the I.T. Act, due to default on the part of the assessee in collecting the tax at source (TCS) in respect of Royalty amount received for these six years. The assessee challenged the orders of the Assessing Officer by filing appeals before the ld. CIT(A) and there was a delay

AMITA SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ITO RANGE-6(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred on facts and in law in not considering that reasons for delay were explained in the course of Appellate Proceeding on 15.09.2023. WITHOUT PRETUDICE TO ABOVE 3. That the Authorities below erred on facts and in law in treating the entire Sale Consideration of Rs.1,30,00,000/- from Sale of Immoveable Property

S.B.I ACCOUNTS & ADMIN OFFICE,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS), HR Section, Admin Office, Kanpur. Main Branch, Kanpur. PAN:KNPSO2318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Pradeep Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing 07/04/2022 Date of pronouncement 27/04/2022 O R D E R PER BENCH: These are appeals filed by two different assessees against separate orders of learned CIT(A) dated 09/11/2016. I.T.A. No.75 & 75/Lkw/2017

S.B.I H.R SECTION (ADMIN OFFICE),KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS), HR Section, Admin Office, Kanpur. Main Branch, Kanpur. PAN:KNPSO2318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Pradeep Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing 07/04/2022 Date of pronouncement 27/04/2022 O R D E R PER BENCH: These are appeals filed by two different assessees against separate orders of learned CIT(A) dated 09/11/2016. I.T.A. No.75 & 75/Lkw/2017

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

2 of 2014 in Writ Petition No- 11991/2014 (case involving the assessee). Hon'ble Madras High Court in the said case had permitted the bankers to not deduct TDS on or after 16 February 2015 on the amount paid /reimbursed to the employees of the Bank in respect of LTC/LTA availed, where the employees had visited a foreign city/ country

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

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

2 of\n2014 in Writ Petition No- 11991/2014 (case involving the assessee). Hon'ble\nMadras High Court in the said case had permitted the bankers to not deduct\nTDS on or after 16 February 2015 on the amount paid /reimbursed to the\nemployees of the Bank in respect of LTC/LTA availed, where the employees\nhad visited a foreign city/ country

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

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

2 of\n2014 in Writ Petition No- 11991/2014 (case involving the assessee). Hon'ble\nMadras High Court in the said case had permitted the bankers to not deduct\nTDS on or after 16 February 2015 on the amount paid /reimbursed to the\nemployees of the Bank in respect of LTC/LTA availed, where the employees\nhad visited a foreign city/ country

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

2 of\n2014 in Writ Petition No- 11991/2014 (case involving the assessee). Hon'ble\nMadras High Court in the said case had permitted the bankers to not deduct\nTDS on or after 16 February 2015 on the amount paid /reimbursed to the\nemployees of the Bank in respect of LTC/LTA availed, where the employees\nhad visited a foreign city/ country

THAKUR ROSHAN SINGH,BAREILLY vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Thakur Roshan Singh, Smirti Sansthan, Vs. Income Tax Officer Vill Chathiya Faizu, Shahpur, Baniyan (Exemption), Ward, Bareilly Faridpur, Bareilly Pan: Aabat8692F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 4.07.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 16.04.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Fact & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Made By Assessing Officer Rs. 60,20,000/- As Building Expenditure For Charitable Purposes, Arbitrarily Rejecting The Explanation Furnished By The Assessee. 2. Because, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Fact & In Law That Such College Is Being Constructed & Run In The Remote Village Where In Due To Various Exigencies & Not Availability Of The Banking Facilities, Payments Are Made In Cash. 3. Because, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Fact & In Law That The Payments Of Construction Had Made Not Being Rejected By The Ld. Ao. However, Due To Ongoing Work It Is A General Practice To Obtain Bills/Settlement Receipts Only On Finalization Of The Work, The Ld. Ao Has Arbitrarily Rejected The Same.

TDS were not available with regard to payments to contractor; relevant bank statement had not been furnished; GST number, registration number of concerned firm / transacting party for not mentioned on bill / cash memo; there was inconsistency between the purchases and attendance of Mistris and Labour on the site. In view of all these, 2 Thakur Roshan Singh