ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KANPUR vs. M.K.U PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

TDS was required to be deducted, the disallowance made has as such been deleted by the AO himself. That being so, there was no merit in the appeal of the Department that the ld. CIT(A) had erred in deleting the additions made under sections 40a(ia), made earlier for failure to deduct tax at source under section

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)

80-1A has to be granted and the other agreements which are pure works contracts hit by the explanation section 801A(13), those work are not entitle for deduction u/s 801A of the Act. The profit from the contracts which involves design, development, operating & maintenance, financial involvement, and defect correction and liability period is to be computed by assessing

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.31,45,000/-.\n\n10. Whether on facts and circumstances

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD VIKRAMJOT BASTI,VIKRAMJOT vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER BASTI -NEW, INCOME TAX OFFICE BASTI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sahkari Ganna Vikas V. The Income Tax Officer Samiti Ltd. Basti Vikramjot, Basti (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aabas4611B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant 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 05.12.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912. The Main Activity Of The Assessee Was Marketing Of Sugar Cane Grown By The Cane Growers, Who Were Members Of The Assessee-Society. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 21.03.2018, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,73,170/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee-Society Had Received Commission From Sugar Mills On Supply Of Sugar Cane Of Rs.70,16,032/-, Which Was Claimed As Exempt In Terms Of Section 80P(2)(A)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act

TDS made under section 194H as commission on receiving has been filed. 8. That the authority below erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction u/s 80P on interest received on investment in form of FDR'S. 9. The addition disallowances are illegal, unjust highly excessive and against the material on record. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred

TINICH SAHKARI GANNA SAMITI LIMITED,BASTI vs. ITO, , BASTI

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

TDS was made u/s.194H of the Act. Less: 1/3 for expenses by estimate Rs.11,85,859/- Rs.23,71,717/- Interest income as per ITR Rs.2,86,061/- Total Taxable income (rounded off) Rs.26,57,780/- ITA No.295/LKW/2023 Page 7 of 28 3.1 The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, assessing the total income at Rs.26

TINICH SAHKARI GANNA SAMITI LIMITED,BASTII vs. ITO, BASTI

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

TDS was made u/s.194H of the Act. Less: 1/3 for expenses by estimate Rs.11,85,859/- Rs.23,71,717/- Interest income as per ITR Rs.2,86,061/- Total Taxable income (rounded off) Rs.26,57,780/- ITA No.295/LKW/2023 Page 7 of 28 3.1 The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, assessing the total income at Rs.26

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

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

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

TDS relating to FDRs of un- utilized fund and is not showing the interest in its income which is against the provisions of section 198 & 199 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Ld.CIT(A), Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.77,80

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

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

80,170/-. During the course of\nassessment, the ld. AO observed from the audit report that the bank had not\ndeposited employers' contribution and contribution received from employees with a\nregistered Provident Fund Trust as per the Government Employees Provident Fund\nand Misc. Provisions Act, 1952. It was pointed out in the audit report that the bank\nwas retaining employees

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

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

section 11 thereby deleting the addition of\nRs.2,66,94,072/- in the form of admission & smart card fees, Exam fee,\nFee Receipts, Projects fees, Uniform fees, internet fees and Book Bank\nReceipts from the students beyond the prescribed amount of fees as\ndecided by the Govt. Authorities, which clearly indicates that the objects of\nthe assessee are not charitable

U.P CIVIL SECRETARIAT PRIMARY COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

80,517/- has been paid to non members and was liable for TDS. Because the learned 1st appellate authority has erred in assuming the 6. entire interest payment to each FD holder is above Rs.10,000/- and is liable for TDS. Without prejudice to the above, 7. Because the learned Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax-(TDS), Lucknow erred in facts

U.P CIVIL SECRETARIAT PRIMARY COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

80,517/- has been paid to non members and was liable for TDS. Because the learned 1st appellate authority has erred in assuming the 6. entire interest payment to each FD holder is above Rs.10,000/- and is liable for TDS. Without prejudice to the above, 7. Because the learned Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax-(TDS), Lucknow erred in facts

U.P CIVIL SECRETARIAT PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE BANK,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

80,517/- has been paid to non members and was liable for TDS. Because the learned 1st appellate authority has erred in assuming the 6. entire interest payment to each FD holder is above Rs.10,000/- and is liable for TDS. Without prejudice to the above, 7. Because the learned Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax-(TDS), Lucknow erred in facts

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

80,79,147\n4,52,65,423\n6.58\n11%\n7%\n2020-21\n1,59,98,27,836\n10,07,00,526\n6.29\n11%\n7%\nAddition on extra profit\ndeleted.\n2021-22\n1,68,08,35,131\n17,03,38,176\n10.13\n11%\n10.13%\n2022-23\n2,82,59,71,973\n28,50,48,173\n11%\n9.68%\nAddition on extra profit

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