M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax ,1961 .The A.O. while passing the order u/s 143(3) of foe Act in this case has not examined the above facts , Accordingly the assessment order on this point is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. ITA No.701 & 702/LKW/2017 Page 7 of 17 In addition to the above

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(4), RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Bareilly V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2472C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Amritsar V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs4654E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Kanpur(I) V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2468Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Guwahati V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2462E (Appellant) (Respondent)

86,466/- (Ground No.3), on account of expenses incurred during the year and capitalized to work-in- progress, the addition having been made under section 69C of the Act, and the addition of Rs.50,91,92,350/- (Ground No.4), under section 69C of the Act, on account of opening balance of work-in-progress brought forward from the earlier year

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

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.1.T. (A), NFAC fails to appreciate that Rs. 7,86,66,490/as Service Tax has been shown under the head “Operating Expenses”, accordingly, no addition should be made under this head as Profitability of the Assessee

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

TDS), Cochin v. Muthoot Banker [2017] 86 taxmann.com 34 (Kerala), the Hon'ble High Court of Kerela has held the assessee is liable for penalty unless he could plead and prove that he was prevented from deducting tax at source by reasonable cause. The relevant portion of the decision is reproduced below:\n\"We are of the opinion that

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

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

TDS), Cochin v. Muthoot\nBanker [2017] 86 taxmann.com 34 (Kerala), the Hon'ble High Court of Kerela has\nheld the assessee is liable for penalty unless he could plead and prove that he was\nprevented from deducting tax at source by reasonable cause. The relevant portion of\nthe decision is reproduced below:\n\"We are of the opinion that

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

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

TDS), Cochin v. Muthoot\nBanker [2017] 86 taxmann.com 34 (Kerala), the Hon'ble High Court of Kerela has\nheld the assessee is liable for penalty unless he could plead and prove that he was\nprevented from deducting tax at source by reasonable cause. The relevant portion of\nthe decision is reproduced below:\n\n\"We are of the opinion that

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

TDS), Cochin v. Muthoot\nBanker [2017] 86 taxmann.com 34 (Kerala), the Hon'ble High Court of Kerela has\nheld the assessee is liable for penalty unless he could plead and prove that he was\nprevented from deducting tax at source by reasonable cause. The relevant portion of\nthe decision is reproduced below:\n\n\"We are of the opinion that

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

86,95,73,737/-) has been disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for payment made without deduction of TDS

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

86,95,73,737/-) has been disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for payment made without deduction of TDS

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

86,926/- was made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the ground that assessee has not deducted 'TDS on supply of material by work contractors. The amount of disallowance was worked out by the Special Auditor. It was noticed that materials have been procured from contractors/transporters & nature of materials were also mentioned where substance of transport

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

86,690/- (Rs. 1,12,87,423 + Rs. 14,99,267/-) deserved to be confirmed. Therefore, the addition to the extent of Rs. 1,27,86,690/- is confirmed and remaining addition of Rs.6,24,93,846/- (7,52,80,536-1,27,86,690) made by the Assessing Officer is hereby deleted. Thus, these grounds of appeal are partly

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

86,690/- (Rs. 1,12,87,423 + Rs. 14,99,267/-) deserved to be confirmed. Therefore, the addition to the extent of Rs. 1,27,86,690/- is confirmed and remaining addition of Rs.6,24,93,846/- (7,52,80,536-1,27,86,690) made by the Assessing Officer is hereby deleted. Thus, these grounds of appeal are partly

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

86,690/- (Rs. 1,12,87,423 + Rs. 14,99,267/-) deserved to be confirmed. Therefore, the addition to the extent of Rs. 1,27,86,690/- is confirmed and remaining addition of Rs.6,24,93,846/- (7,52,80,536-1,27,86,690) made by the Assessing Officer is hereby deleted. Thus, these grounds of appeal are partly

M/S SINGHAL CONCAST PVT. LTD,LUCKNOW vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

86,866/- inclusive of interest for not collecting tax at source on the scrap sold. 6. Because the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi has failed to appreciate that the assessee is merely a trader, does not deal in scrap as defined in the Explanation to Section 206C, Clause (b). Hence, the provisions of section 206C are not applicable, the order passed

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

Accordingly all four additional grounds filed by the revenue in Appeal numbers 532 & 533 of 2014, stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

86,375/- for the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee was asked to submit confirmation of parties, in response to which it submitted that it was a U.P. Government Organization and such advances through contractors were given in the normal course of business. It requested more time to submit the details called for by the ld. AO, on the grounds

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

86,375/- for the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee was asked to submit confirmation of parties, in response to which it submitted that it was a U.P. Government Organization and such advances through contractors were given in the normal course of business. It requested more time to submit the details called for by the ld. AO, on the grounds

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

86,375/- for the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee was asked to submit confirmation of parties, in response to which it submitted that it was a U.P. Government Organization and such advances through contractors were given in the normal course of business. It requested more time to submit the details called for by the ld. AO, on the grounds

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

86,375/- for the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee was asked to submit confirmation of parties, in response to which it submitted that it was a U.P. Government Organization and such advances through contractors were given in the normal course of business. It requested more time to submit the details called for by the ld. AO, on the grounds