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

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

PUSHPENDRA SINGH,RAEBARELI vs. DCIT CIRCLE,, FAIZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Pushpendra Singh V. Dcit Circle, 680, Amar Nagar, Raebareli Faizabad/National E- (U.P)-229001. Assessment Centre Delhi Pan:Axbps1905L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

TDS of section 194C were not appreciated since such payments are below the threshold limit specified in section 194C and on a due consideration of this fact atone, no dis-allowance of 30% of Rs. 1,20,000/- could have been made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4.1 BECAUSE the "CIT(A)" has erred

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, these three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

TDS are not applicable as per Law. Therefore, Provisions of Section 199 read with Rule 37BA of I. T. Rules are not applicable in the present sets of facts and circumstances. (5) The Ld. C. I. T. (A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition being disallowance of Rs. 74,874/- Provision for Gratuity

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

61,00,000/- on account of salary-arrears. 3. That the orders passed by the tax authorities are against facts and law. 4. That the appellant craves the leave to take additional amended grounds during the course of appellate proceedings.” ITA. No.369/LKW/2017 1. The Ld.CIT(A)-2, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in in directing to compute

AMAN INFRAPROPERTIES P. LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 234E of 1. T. Act for F. Y. 2014-15 in Form 2402 was also filed on 16.10.2021 against Order dated 23.09.2021 of ACIT-TDS, CPC and Ld. C.I.T. (A) decided the issue of TDS in the Quantum Appeal and thereby closed the quantum appeal proceedings without deciding the quantum issue. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE

AMAN INFRAPROPERTIES P. LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 234E of 1. T. Act for F. Y. 2014-15 in Form 2402 was also filed on 16.10.2021 against Order dated 23.09.2021 of ACIT-TDS, CPC and Ld. C.I.T. (A) decided the issue of TDS in the Quantum Appeal and thereby closed the quantum appeal proceedings without deciding the quantum issue. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE

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

61,00,000/- on account of salary-arrears.\n3. That the orders passed by the tax authorities are against facts and law.\n4. That the appellant craves the leave to take additional amended grounds\nduring the course of appellate proceedings.\nITA. No.369/LKW/2017\n1. The Ld.CIT(A)-2, Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in in directing to\ncompute

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

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

section 41 of the Act and\naccordingly relief was prayed for on this count.\nOn the ground of addition of Rs.2,70,760/- as notional interest income, the\nassessee submitted that it had received no such interest and no such TDS had been\ndeducted in support of the same, it submitted Form No. 26AS where the figures\nreflected

M/S SHIVANSH INFRAESTATE PVT.LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 M/S Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Block-A, Surajdeep Income Tax, Range-6, 3Rd Floor, Complex, 1-Jopling Road, 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001 P.K. Complex, Lucknow Pan: Aaqcs5896P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.02.2026 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 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 18.01.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 30.12.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1- The Ld. Cit (A) Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Ground That Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito-6(1) Lucknow On 01.04.2016 Without Appreciating That Jurisdiction Of Case Lies With Dcit, Range-6, Lucknow, Hence The Notice Issued By Ito-6(1) Is Without Jurisdiction & Invalid. Further, No Notice U/S 143(2) Has Been Issued By Jurisdictional Dcit, Range-Vi, Lucknow Within The Period As Per Section 143(2) Of L. T. Act. Hence The Present Assessment Is Invalid, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2- The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Upheld The Addition Without Appreciating That Ld. A. O. Rejected The Books Of Account & Instead Of Estimating The Net Profit, Additions Were Made On The Basis Of Same Books Of Account By Disallowing Expenses Under Different Heads Total Rs. 1,75,91,607/- & Addition U/S 68 R. W. S. 115Bbe Of I. T. Act For Rs. 1,32,78,833/- Which Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law.

TDS again. 4- The Ld. CIT (A) upheld the ad-hoc disallowance restricting it to Rs. 8,32,144/- being 15% instead of 20% computed by Ld. A. O. on the expenses w. r. t. Sales Promotion for Rs. 13,61,930/-, Vehicle Running and Maintenance Rs. 10,76,395/-, Printing and Stationary Expenses Rs. 15,28,354/-, Telephone Expenses

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 from salaries for financial year 2013-14 (CBDT Circular No. 8/2013 dated 10 October 2013) clarifies that where the journey is performed in a circuitous route, the exemption is limited to what is admissible by the shortest route. Likewise, where the journey is performed in a circular form touching different places, the exemption is limited to what is admissible

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

TDS from salaries for financial year 2013-14 (CBDT Circular No. 8/2013 dated 10 October 2013) clarifies that where the journey is performed in a circuitous route, the exemption is limited to what is admissible by the shortest route. Likewise, where the journey is performed in a circular form touching different places, the exemption is limited to what is admissible

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

TDS from salaries for financial year 2013-14 (CBDT Circular No. 8/2013 dated 10 October 2013) clarifies that where the journey is performed in a circuitous route, the exemption is limited to what is admissible by the shortest route. Likewise, where the journey is performed in a circular form touching different places, the exemption is limited to what is admissible

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 from salaries for financial year 2013-14 (CBDT Circular No. 8/2013 dated 10 October 2013) clarifies that where the journey is performed in a circuitous route, the exemption is limited to what is admissible by the shortest route. Likewise, where the journey is performed in a circular form touching different places, the exemption is limited to what is admissible

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. A CIT (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2012-13 National Highway Authority V. Addl. Cit (Tds) Of India 7/199, Radiance Town, 53, Basant Vihar, Naubasta, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur- Kanpur-208021. 208002. Pan:Aaatn1936H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 06 10 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 10 2025 O R D E R

TDS) and as upheld by the CIT(NFAC), overlooking and ignoring the petition for rectification u/s 154 of the act, being totally in disregard to the provision of the act, being violative to the principles of natural justice, totally unwarranted be quashed. 6. Because there being neither failure to the deduct whole or any part of the tax, the discrepancy

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

TDS\nprovisions.\n27\n2021-22\n4.1 / 2\n4.1 follows: The Auditor, in his audit\nreport dated 08.03.2022, in Form No. 3CB\nhas commented as\na. It is not possible to ascertain GP ratio\nin such type of business.\nb. As explained to us, entity has not\nmaintained quantity wise reconciliation of\nstock.\nc. Sundry debtor, creditors and loans &\nadvances

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

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