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

TDS on the amount of reimbursement of Leave Travel Concession (LTC)/Leave Fare Concession (LFC) given to the employees even in the cases where a foreign destination was included in the itinerary of their journey. Section 10(5

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

TDS on the amount of reimbursement of Leave Travel Concession (LTC)/Leave Fare Concession (LFC) given to the employees even in the cases where a foreign destination was included in the itinerary of their journey. Section 10(5

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,, LUCKNOW

section 144(2) of the Act,\nAssessing Officer is duty bound to record his/her dissatisfaction on correctness\nof claim of assessee before invoking the provision of section 144. As it is\nevident from language of section 144 as well as of rule 8D, recording of the\ndissatisfaction of Assessing officer as regard to correctness of claim of\nexpenditure made

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide I

section 14A read with Rule 8D was made\nsolely on the basis of investment by Assessee Company in SPVs without\nverifying objects of investment and understanding of relevant provision of law.\nIt is also submitted that section 14A carries heading 'Expenditure\nincurred in relation to income not includible in total income'\n\nAs per Section 14A:- 'For the purpose

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 10(5) The reimbursement has been allowed by the assessee to the employee in respect of the journey performed by her outside India. Therefore, such reimbursement was not exempt u/s 10(5) of I.T. Act and was liable for TDS

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

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

section 10(5)\nThe reimbursement has been allowed by the assessee to the employee in\nrespect of the journey performed by her outside India. Therefore, such\nreimbursement was not exempt u/s 10(5) of I.T. Act and was liable for TDS

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

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

section 10(5)\nThe reimbursement has been allowed by the assessee to the employee in\nrespect of the journey performed by her outside India. Therefore, such\nreimbursement was not exempt u/s 10(5) of I.T. Act and was liable for 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 10(5)\nThe reimbursement has been allowed by the assessee to the employee in\nrespect of the journey performed by her outside India. Therefore, such\nreimbursement was not exempt u/s 10(5) of I.T. Act and was liable for TDS

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is held to be partly allowed

5 of the Interest Tax Act\ndefines chargeable interest as the total amount of interest accuring or arising to the\ncredit institution in that previous year (other than interest on loans and advances\nmade to other credit institutions or to any cooperative society engaged in carrying\non the business of the banking). Thus, the necessary pre-condition for holding

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 273B of the Act 1961. 5. That the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the Learned CIT (Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon'ble Member, IITAT. 6. That the Learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in law in rejecting the appeal arbitrarily and in utter disregard of the submission made before him. I.T.A. Nos.487 to 491/Lkw/2024

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

TDS were not applicable to this transaction and therefore, the Tribunal held that it was not an interest received by the assessee on loans/advances, within the meaning of section 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act. Therefore, it held that the provisions of section 5

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 The Asstt. Commissioner V. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd Of Income Tax B-9, Vibhuti Khand Central Circle Ii Gomti Nagar Lucnow Lucknow Pan:Aadca5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.19/Lkw/2017 [In Ita No.66/Lkw/2017] Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-9, Vibhuti Khand Income Tax Gomti Nagar Central Circle Ii Lucknow Lucnow Pan:Aadca5639H (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

5 of the appeal of the Revenue. 19. Ground No.6 of the appeal of the Revenue relates to the deletion of addition of Rs.6,75,950/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the said disallowance vide paras 14.1 to 14.3 of his order, observing as under: “14.1 Ground

STATE BANK OF INDIA, SMECCC-CODE-5030,KANPUR vs. ITO(TDS)-2, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

5) of the Act, the Assessing Page 4 of 12 I.T.A. No.390 & 391/Lkw/2023 Officer (TDS)-II created a demand of Rs.1,34,035/- under section

STETE BANK OF INDIA, SMECCC CODE-5030,KANPUR vs. ITO (TDS)-, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

5) of the Act, the Assessing Page 4 of 12 I.T.A. No.390 & 391/Lkw/2023 Officer (TDS)-II created a demand of Rs.1,34,035/- under section

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

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

M/S HINDUSTAN SEVA TRUST,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

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

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

section 80G(5) is delayed by 462 days. The assessee has filed condonation petitions for the delay, in which it has been submitted that the returns of the trust were being filed by one practitioner, Sh. Prabhjot Singh of Bareilly, who use to also advise on taxation matters. The communications with respect to the Trust were being sent

M/S HINDUSTAN SEVA TRUST,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

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

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

section 80G(5) is delayed by 462 days. The assessee has filed condonation petitions for the delay, in which it has been submitted that the returns of the trust were being filed by one practitioner, Sh. Prabhjot Singh of Bareilly, who use to also advise on taxation matters. The communications with respect to the Trust were being sent