KRISHNA PRAKASH GOEL,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2023-24 Krishna Prakash Goel V. The Income Tax Officer 1(1) Flat No.910, Tulip Grace Tower Bareilly - New Ivri Road, Izzatnagar Bareilly (U.P) Tan/Pan:Admpg6472F (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.05.2025, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Nashik For Assessment Year 2023-24. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee E-Filed His Return Of Income On 24.07.2023, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.2,27,620/-. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) By The Cpc, Bengaluru, Which Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.2,27,620/- & Disallowed The Tax Deducted At Source (Tds) Credit Of 2,07,454/-. The Cpc Had Reduced The Tds Credit To Rs.1,35,561/- Against The Tds Claim Made By The Assessee Of Rs.3,43,015/- & Raised A Demand Of Rs.1,41,660/-, Vide Order Dated 29.12.2023. Ita No.491/Lkw/2025 Page 2 Of 5

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) by the CPC, Bengaluru, which assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.2,27,620/- and disallowed the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) credit of 2,07,454/-. The CPC had reduced the TDS credit to Rs.1,35

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

35. There are a large number of decisions of various Courts, wherein it has been held that where the employer makes a bona fide estimate of the income of the employee and deducts I.T.A. No.76, 22, 304 & 305/Lkw/2017 11 tax at source thereon, he cannot be held to be an assessee in default under section 201. 36. In this regard

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

35. There are a large number of decisions of various Courts, wherein it has been held that where the employer makes a bona fide estimate of the income of the employee and deducts I.T.A. No.76, 22, 304 & 305/Lkw/2017 11 tax at source thereon, he cannot be held to be an assessee in default under section 201. 36. In this regard

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

35. There are a large number of decisions of various Courts, wherein it has been held that where the employer makes a bona fide estimate of the income of the employee and deducts I.T.A. No.76, 22, 304 & 305/Lkw/2017 11 tax at source thereon, he cannot be held to be an assessee in default under section 201. 36. In this regard

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

35. There are a large number of decisions of various Courts, wherein it has been held that where the employer makes a bona fide estimate of the income of the employee and deducts I.T.A. No.76, 22, 304 & 305/Lkw/2017 11 tax at source thereon, he cannot be held to be an assessee in default under section 201. 36. In this regard

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUCKNOW vs. RAJEEV KUMAR KAPOOR, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

TDS, not being penal in nature, could not be disallowed on account of the provisions of section Explanation 1 of sub section 1 of section 37. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal. 4. The Department is aggrieved at this order of the ld. CIT(A) and has accordingly filed this appeal. Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR (hereinafter

ARUN KUMAR CHATURVEDI,KANPUR vs. ACIT-3, KANPUR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.108/Lkw/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Arun Kumar Chaturvedi 12/9, Vishno Puri Colony, Nawab Ganj, Kanpur. Pan: Abcpc6864F . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 Kanpur . . . . . . . ""थ" / Respondent "ारा / Appearances Assessee By : None [Adjournment Rejected] Revenue By : Mr Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac/Cit(A)’] Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/ 1059274800(1) Dt. 02/01/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 31/03/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act. 2. Briefly Stated Facts Anent To The Case Are That; 2.1 The Assessee Contractor Is A Proprietor Of M/S Hi-Tech Controls Filed His Return Of Income Declaring ₹16,43,890/- For The Year Under Consideration. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny By

TDS’] from the contractual payment ₹35,84,108/- made/payable to one of the labour contractors viz; M/s Neelam Construction, the entire amount of expense was disallowed by the Ld. AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and accordingly determined the total income ₹1,64,23,210/- in variation to income returned by the assessee. 2.2 When aforestated additions

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

35-D(xlvii-20)-(File No.10/48/65-IT(A-0) dated 24.11.1965. We further\nnote that said Circular has been considered by the ITAT Chandigarh 'A' Bench in the\ncase of Gurudwara Godri Sahib Baba Farid Society vs. DCIT (Exemption) (2023) 154\ntaxman.com 503 (Chd-Trib) wherein the Tribunal has held that where an\nembezzlement of funds of employees had occurred during

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

35. It is instructive in this context to note that the Finance Act, 1987, introduced to Section 2(24), the definition clause (x), with effect from 1 April 1988; it also brought in Section 36(1)(va). The memorandum explaining these provisions, in the Finance Bill, 1987, presented to the Parliament, is extracted below: "Measures of penalising employers mis-utilising

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

TDS @ 30% of expenses of Rs. \n3074000/- where profit is estimated. \n\n3. 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 \nwhile invoking provision of section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is \nestimated. \n\n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY. CIT, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

35), u/s 10(34) or u/s 10(38) of the Act\n9\nin the income tax return. In support of this contention, it submitted the audited\nbalance-sheet and the profit and loss account and copy of income tax return filed\nthrough e-filing. It is also submitted the details of non SLR investment amounting to\nRs.31

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT, LUCKNOW

35), u/s 10(34) or u/s 10(38) of the Act\n9\nITA Nos.112 to 114/LKW/2024\nITA. No.141/LKW/2024\nin the income tax return. In support of this contention, it submitted the audited\nbalance-sheet and the profit and loss account and copy of income tax return filed\nthrough e-filing. It is also submitted the details of non SLR investment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA UP

TDS @ 30% of expenses of Rs.\n3074000/- where profit is estimated.\n3. 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\non provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is estimated.\n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA

TDS @ 30% of expenses of Rs.\n3074000/- where profit is estimated.\n3. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.37,00,000/- out of total addition of Rs.\n52,00,000/- made on account of difference of investment in cost of\nconstruction of the property at 57, Laxmanpuri, Lucknow made