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

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

section 156 of IT Act 1961\ndated 25-09-2023 passed by the Learned Assessing Authority in respect of\nthe appellant banking company le. State Bank Of India, considering the\nappellant banking company as an assessee in default for not deducting and\ndepositing the TDS

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

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

section 156 of IT Act 1961\ndated 25-09-2023 passed by the Learned Assessing Authority in respect of\nthe appellant banking company le. State Bank Of India, considering the\nappellant banking company as an assessee in default for not deducting and\ndepositing the TDS

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

section 156 of IT Act 1961\ndated 25-09-2023 passed by the Learned Assessing Authority in respect of\nthe appellant banking company le. State Bank Of India, considering the\nappellant banking company as an assessee in default for not deducting and\ndepositing the TDS

M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

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

TDS : Rs.1,699/- (iv) Addition under section 14A of the Act : Rs.36,310/- ITA No.701 & 702/LKW/2017 Page 10 of 17 8. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 24/10/2013 issued under section 263 of the Act, as reproduced hereinabove, shows that there is nothing contained therein with regard to the above additions or disallowances, but for the issue

M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

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

TDS : Rs.1,699/- (iv) Addition under section 14A of the Act : Rs.36,310/- ITA No.701 & 702/LKW/2017 Page 10 of 17 8. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 24/10/2013 issued under section 263 of the Act, as reproduced hereinabove, shows that there is nothing contained therein with regard to the above additions or disallowances, but for the issue

PRATHVI RAJ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2009-10 Prathvi Raj V. The Dcit P-248, 1St Floor, Nehru Enclave Lucknow Gomit Nagar, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Adbpp5752G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2024 O R D E R

25,366/- towards housing loan interest, Rs.1,00,000/- being deduction under section 80C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’). The assessee also claimed TDS

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

TDS provision under section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is\nestimated.\n\n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,000/- being disallowances of expenses\nunder section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is estimated.\n\n5. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow

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

25. It may be noted that even in cases where the employee travels outside India during the course of his travel to a place in India, the exemption under section 10(5) is restricted for travel within India. In other words, where the designated place in India is Kolkata and the travel itinerary is Mumbai-Kolkata- Singapore-Kolkata, Mumbai, exemption

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

25. It may be noted that even in cases where the employee travels outside India during the course of his travel to a place in India, the exemption under section 10(5) is restricted for travel within India. In other words, where the designated place in India is Kolkata and the travel itinerary is Mumbai-Kolkata- Singapore-Kolkata, Mumbai, exemption

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

25. It may be noted that even in cases where the employee travels outside India during the course of his travel to a place in India, the exemption under section 10(5) is restricted for travel within India. In other words, where the designated place in India is Kolkata and the travel itinerary is Mumbai-Kolkata- Singapore-Kolkata, Mumbai, exemption

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

25. It may be noted that even in cases where the employee travels outside India during the course of his travel to a place in India, the exemption under section 10(5) is restricted for travel within India. In other words, where the designated place in India is Kolkata and the travel itinerary is Mumbai-Kolkata- Singapore-Kolkata, Mumbai, exemption

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

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

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. 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

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

25) of article 366 of the Constitution; (b)" backward classes" means such classes of citizens, other than the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, as may be notified- (i) by the Central Government; or (ii) by any State Government, as the case may be, from time to time; [2:56 pm, 26/11/2025] .: 6(5)(i) The provisions of section

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

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 State Bank Of India V. Dcit (Tds) The Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar- 7/119, Radiance Town, 208001. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar-208002. Pan:Knps02318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 State Bank Of India V. Addl. Cit (Tds) The Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar- 7/119, Radiance Town, 208001. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar-208002. Pan: Knps02318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21 07 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 07 2025 O R D E R

TDS) dated 25-05- 2023 U/s 271C of the Act is bad in law and void ab initio, since the penalty proceedings have been initiated after almost 6 years from the end of the financial year which cannot be considered reasonable time Period for initiating proceedings as held by various authorities. 3. That the unsigned impugned order dated

STATE BANK OF INDIA,SMECC, ZONAL OFFICE,KANPUR vs. ACIT9TDS), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 State Bank Of India V. Dcit (Tds) The Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar- 7/119, Radiance Town, 208001. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar-208002. Pan:Knps02318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 State Bank Of India V. Addl. Cit (Tds) The Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar- 7/119, Radiance Town, 208001. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar-208002. Pan: Knps02318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21 07 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 07 2025 O R D E R

TDS) dated 25-05- 2023 U/s 271C of the Act is bad in law and void ab initio, since the penalty proceedings have been initiated after almost 6 years from the end of the financial year which cannot be considered reasonable time Period for initiating proceedings as held by various authorities. 3. That the unsigned impugned order dated