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

3 of 7 of the principles of natural justice as no Notice have been served by the Assessing Officer before passing the impugned order. 7. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), sustaining the order of ITO1 (TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of the Income

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

3 of 7 of the principles of natural justice as no Notice have been served by the Assessing Officer before passing the impugned order. 7. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), sustaining the order of ITO1 (TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of the Income

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

3 of 7 of the principles of natural justice as no Notice have been served by the Assessing Officer before passing the impugned order. 7. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), sustaining the order of ITO1 (TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of the Income

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

3 of 7 of the principles of natural justice as no Notice have been served by the Assessing Officer before passing the impugned order. 7. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), sustaining the order of ITO1 (TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of the Income

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

3 of 7 of the principles of natural justice as no Notice have been served by the Assessing Officer before passing the impugned order. 7. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), sustaining the order of ITO1 (TDS) u/s 206C (6A) of the Income

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

3 4. That the Authorities below erred in not considering that the entire Sale Consideration cannot be treated as Long Term Capital Gain and the cost of Acquisition and cost of Improvement ought to have been allowed from the Sale Consideration. 5. That the Authorities below erred on facts and in law in not allowing the credit of TDS

UP GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

3) of the Act. It was submitted that according to Section 270A(6) of the Act any estimated addition could not be subject matter of penalty u/s 270A of the Act if the assessee offered an explanation which was bona-fide and the assessee had disclosed all materials facts to substantiate the explanation; if under-reported income was determined

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

TDS amount is included then it should reach to the amount assessed by the Assessing Officer. Further, the Assessing Officer -has not added the pension amount as mentioned by appellant as the appellant never appeared before the Assessing Officer. The. Assessing Officer is directed to take remedial action while giving appeal effect. ITA. Nos. 249 & 251/LKW/2024 Page

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

TDS amount is included then it should reach to the amount assessed by the Assessing Officer. Further, the Assessing Officer -has not added the pension amount as mentioned by appellant as the appellant never appeared before the Assessing Officer. The. Assessing Officer is directed to take remedial action while giving appeal effect. ITA. Nos. 249 & 251/LKW/2024 Page

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

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.

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 and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in fact and in law in confirming the disallowance made by Assessing Officer Rs. 60,20,000/- as building expenditure

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

3,97,000/- | 1,19,100/- | 96,471/-\n| | Agarwal\n| Shri R. K. Singhla | 28.10.2016 | 1,34,986/- | 40,496/- | 31,992/-\n\n2. In compliance to above show cause notices, the deductor assessee branch has\nnot submitted anything in the matter. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS),\nKanpur, passed an order u/s 201(1)/201

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

3. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee as the demand so raised for the alleged nonpayment of 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

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

3. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee as the demand so raised for the alleged nonpayment of 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

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

3. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee as the demand so raised for the alleged nonpayment of 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