SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

Section 263 of the Act which came\ninto effect from 01/06/2015 onwards. However, the same is used by him\nonly in the revision order passed u/s.263 of the Act. This goes to prove\nthat the assessee was never given an opportunity to address the\napplicability of provisions of Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act\nduring the course

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

TDS provision under section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is\nestimated.\n\n9. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition of Rs.12,01,000/- computed addition of Rs.61,31,000/- \nagainst actual consideration of Rs.31,45

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

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) of the Act and consequently determined the liability for non/short deduction of TDS and interest chargeable thereon u/s 201(1A) of the Act as under; Short/Non Total Demand Interest

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

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) of the Act and consequently determined the liability for non/short deduction of TDS and interest chargeable thereon u/s 201(1A) of the Act as under; Short/Non Total Demand Interest

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

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) of the Act and consequently determined the liability for non/short deduction of TDS and interest chargeable thereon u/s 201(1A) of the Act as under; Short/Non Total Demand Interest

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

45,71,123/- by making certain additions. 4. Later on, the case was set-aside as per provision of Sec. 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 28.03.2018 (F. No. Pr. CII-2/Tech/Lko/263/AY 2013-14/UPSCIDC/2017-18/1131) OF THE Ld. Pr CIT-2, Lucknow. Accordingly, notices u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 961 along

U.P SAMAJ KALYAN NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS U.P STATE CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.),LUCKNOW vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, LUCKNOW

45,71,123/- by making certain additions.\n4. Later on, the case was set-aside as per provision of Sec. 263(1) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 vide order dated 28.03.2018 (F. No. Pr. CII-2/Tech/Lko/263/AY\n2013-14/UPSCIDC/2017-18/1131) OF THE Ld. Pr CIT-2, Lucknow. Accordingly,\nnotices u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 961 along

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

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

45. A reading of the judgment in Alom Extrusions, would reveal that this court, did not consider Sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va). Furthermore, the separate provisions in Section 36(1) for employers' contribution and employees' contribution, too went unnoticed. The court observed inter alia, that: "15. ...It is important to note once again that, by Finance

ACIT(E), LUCKNOW vs. M/S. BHAGWANT INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, BIJNOR

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

45,112/-\n(iii) Training and Placement-\n6,31,800/-\nDuring the course of assessment proceedings the assessee could not\nproduce any bill/voucher in original or any documentary evidence in\nsupport of claim of above expenditure. Further, the assessee also could not\nproduce any evidence regarding deduction of TDS on Fees, Training and\nPlacement expenses. Hence, the AO made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

TDS can not held to be non disclosure of the full particulars. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the notice under Section 147 of the Act to the petitioner stands vitiated in non compliance or fulfilment of the second condition as laid down in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act.” Shri Anil Kumar

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

TDS can not held to be non disclosure of the full particulars. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the notice under Section 147 of the Act to the petitioner stands vitiated in non compliance or fulfilment of the second condition as laid down in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act.” Shri Anil Kumar

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

TDS on payment of Rs. 3074000 @ 30% i.e. 922200/- in violation of the provision of section 40a(ia) In relevant year Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 9,22,200/- on account of payment of such expenses on which tax was not deducted aggregating Rs. 30,74,000/- as reported by Auditor in TAR and on other side estimated

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

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

TDS on payment of Rs. 3074000 @ 30% i.e. 922200/- in violation of the provision of section 40a(ia) In relevant year Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 9,22,200/- on account of payment of such expenses on which tax was not deducted aggregating Rs. 30,74,000/- as reported by Auditor in TAR and on other side estimated