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

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

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

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

86,337/- was remitted to LIC vide letter dated\n26.11.2012. The ld. AO noted that the assessee had not filed any evidence regarding\nthe deposit of employees contribution and therefore, since the same had not been\ndeposited by the assessee into any recognized Provident Fund, hence, in the light of\nthe provisions of section 2(24)(x) r.w.s.36

FUTURE PHARMA PVT.LTD,KANPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

section 194H. The aforesaid details were placed at Annexure\nB of the reply.\nExtracts from reply e-filed on 31/01/2021 are also reproduced herein\nbelow:\n\"Point No.7\n1.\n2. In respect of commission expenses claimed in the accounts of the\ncompany, the assessee disclosed gross sales of Rs.2,93,97,138.37/-. From\nthe list of parties to whom goods

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

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

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

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

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

86,375/- for the\n assessment year 2008-09. The assessee was asked to submit confirmation of parties,\nin response to which it submitted that it was a U.P. Government Organization and\nsuch advances through contractors were given in the normal course of business. It\nrequested more time to submit the details called

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

86,375/- for the\n assessment year 2008-09. The assessee was asked to submit confirmation of parties,\nin response to which it submitted that it was a U.P. Government Organization and\nsuch advances through contractors were given in the normal course of business. It\nrequested more time to submit the details called

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

86,375/- for the\n assessment year 2008-09. The assessee was asked to submit confirmation of parties,\nin response to which it submitted that it was a U.P. Government Organization and\nsuch advances through contractors were given in the normal course of business. It\nrequested more time to submit the details called

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

86,375/- for the\n assessment year 2008-09. The assessee was asked to submit confirmation of parties,\nin response to which it submitted that it was a U.P. Government Organization and\nsuch advances through contractors were given in the normal course of business. It\nrequested more time to submit the details called

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

86,375/- for the\n assessment year 2008-09. The assessee was asked to submit confirmation of parties,\nin response to which it submitted that it was a U.P. Government Organization and\nsuch advances through contractors were given in the normal course of business. It\nrequested more time to submit the details called