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

90 days, and the FDs keep\nrolling over for different LCs. The assessee was, therefore, asked to submit specific\ndetails of Bank Guarantee with accrued interest on FD allocable to the eligible\nunits.\nIn response, the assessee made the following submissions:\nImpact on profit under section 801A by direct allocation of Interest Income\nfrom FDR kept as Margin Money

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

In the result, appeals vide I

90 days, and the FDs keep\nrolling over for different LCs. The assessee was, therefore, asked to submit specific\ndetails of Bank Guarantee with accrued interest on FD allocable to the eligible\nunits.\n\nIn response, the assessee made the following submissions:\n\nImpact on profit under section 801A by direct allocation of Interest Income\nfrom FDR kept as Margin

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

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

1 (Del).\nthe ld. CIT(A) held that in the case of the assessee, the purpose of accumulation of setting apart the income to attain the objects showed a lack of application of mind and specificity as prescribed in section 11(2) of the Act. He, therefore, held that if the contention of the assessee were to be accepted

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

1 (Del).\nthe ld. CIT(A) held that in the case of the assessee, the purpose of\naccumulation of setting apart the income to attain the objects showed a lack of\napplication of mind and specificity as prescribed in section 11(2) of the Act. He,\ntherefore, held that if the contention of the assessee were to be accepted

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

1 (Del).\nthe ld. CIT(A) held that in the case of the assessee, the purpose of\naccumulation of setting apart the income to attain the objects showed a lack of\napplication of mind and specificity as prescribed in section 11(2) of the Act. He,\ntherefore, held that if the contention of the assessee were to be accepted

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

1 (Del).\nthe ld. CIT(A) held that in the case of the assessee, the purpose of\naccumulation of setting apart the income to attain the objects showed a lack of\napplication of mind and specificity as prescribed in section 11(2) of the Act. He,\ntherefore, held that if the contention of the assessee were to be accepted

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

1 (Del).\n\nthe ld. CIT(A) held that in the case of the assessee, the purpose of\naccumulation of setting apart the income to attain the objects showed a lack of\n\napplication of mind and specificity as prescribed in section 11(2) of the Act. He,\ntherefore, held that if the contention of the assessee were

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

90,31,586/- by way of interest on "Loan and Others including UPSEB Loans" were referable merely to the advance payments/deposits made, mainly with UPSEB, to enable them to set up power stations for the industrial estate/sites of UPSIDC and also to undertake the works of upgrading the same and the same could not be held to be referable either

M/S MODEL EXIM,KANPUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriam/S. Model Exim Pcit (Central) V. 624-C, Defence Colony, 7/81-B, Tilak Nagar, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010. Kanpur. Pan:Aadfm6163H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Smt Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 29 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 11 2024 O R D E R

TDS u/s 195 of the IT. Act. In his reply the assessee has stated the disallowance of the commission under section 9(1)(vii) as FTS is not applicable to the facts of the case as per reason given in the reply. In support of his claim he has relied upon the following case laws in his favour: - 1

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

90,31,586/- by way of interest on\n\"Loan and Others including UPSEB Loans\" were referable merely to the advance\npayments/deposits made, mainly with UPSEB, to enable them to set up power\nstations for the industrial estate/sites of UPSIDC and also to undertake the\nworks of upgrading the same and the same could not be held to be referable

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

1 (Del).\nthe ld. CIT(A) held that in the case of the assessee, the purpose of\naccumulation of setting apart the income to attain the objects showed a lack of\n19\nITA Nos.532 & 533/LKW/2014\nITA Nos.534 & 535/LKW/2014\nITA Nos.21 & 22/LKW/2019\nU.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad\napplication of mind and specificity as prescribed in section

GOLDEN COMTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KANPUR, KANPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Golden Comtrade Private Limited, Vs. Acit-5, 58/43, Birhana Road, Kanpur Kanpur-208001 Pan: Aaccg 1622R (Appellant) (Respondent)

1,90,00,000/- (Rs. 19000000+ Rs. 19000000/2) which comes to Rs. 95,000/- is also disallowed. Hence, the total disallowance as per provisions of Sec. 14A would be Rs.4,21,463/- (Rs. 3,26,463 + Rs. 95,000 which would be disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. company.” 7. In the above findings, the Assessing

M/S. TIRUBALA INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-VI, KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Tirubala International Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of C-7, Panki Industrial Area, Vs. Income Tax, Range-Vi, Kanpur Kanpur, U.P. Pan:Aaect2086J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Vikas Garg, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Dcit-6, Kanpur Passed On 19.12.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ao, Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Addition Of Rs. 29,164/- On Account Of Late Payment Towards Employees Contribution To Esi. 2. That The Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate That The Payment Of Rs.29,164 Towards Employee'S Contribution To Provident Fund Was Made Before The "Due Date" Of Filing Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 Therefore There Could Not Be Any Addition Of The Aforesaid Amount To The Returned Income. 3. That The Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate That The Due Date As Mentioned In 36(1) (Va) Is To Be Read In Conjunction With Section 43B(B)

TDS on that payment, in the light of the provisions of section 195 of the Act. Therefore, invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, expenditure of Rs.2,68,311/- was disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee company. Finally, on perusal of the profit and loss account and other details submitted

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

90,54,400/- which have not\nbeen examined by the AO with regard to genuineness of the expenses\nclaimed nor whether the same were allowable as per provisions of the Act.\nThe Assessing officer has passed the assessment order on 15.12.2019 u/s\n143 of the Act without enquiries on the above issues and accepted\nsubmissions of the assessee

BHAWANI DEVELOPERS,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW-NEW

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid\ndirections

section 139(1) and\ntherefore liable to tax u/s 43B of the Act. Accordingly, the entire outstanding liability on\naccount of GST/Service tax of Rs.1,30,50,629/- brought to tax under the head \"Profits and\nGain from business and profession.\n3.3.10 In view of the above stated facts, the assesseee has under reported its income by\nmisreporting. Penalty proceedings

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. UTTAR PRADESH POLICE AND ARMED FORCES SAHAYATA SANSTHAN, LUCKNOW

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer V. Uttar Pradesh Police & Armed (Exemption) Forces Sahayata Sansthan Lucknow Room No.6, Naveen Bhawan U.P. Sachivalaya, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaatr4272K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Respondent By: Shri B. P. Yadav, Advocate O R D E R

1. The Ld. CIT(Appeal)-4, Lucknow has erred on facts and law in allowing the amount of Rs.99,45,622/- out of the total amount of Rs.1,97,00,000/- set apart in the F.Y. 2009-10. Whereas in this year i.e. Assessment Year 2013-14 (Financial Year 2012-13) no adjustment of an amount of Rs.99

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

1. That on the facts and circumstance of the case and in the law,\nthe order passed u/s 250 r. w. s 271C of the Act dated\n10/06/2024 dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant and\nconfirming the levy of penalty of Rs.1/- by the Ld. CIT(A),\nwithout giving any justifiable reasoning and ignoring the\nsubmissions made before

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

90,393/- is bad in law for the reason that said order under section 271C of the IT Act 1961 dated 25-05-2023 vide DIN No-KNP/95/25-05-2023/00102 and said notice of demand u/s 156 of the IT Act 1961 dated 25-05-2023 vide DIN number:-KNP/95/25-05-2023/00101 has been issued with the same Document Identification Number (\"DIN\"), which

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

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

1. That on the facts and circumstance of the case and in the law,\nthe order passed u/s 250 r. w. s 271C of the Act dated\n10/06/2024 dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant and\nconfirming the levy of penalty of Rs.1,- by the Ld. CIT(A),\nwithout giving any justifiable reasoning and ignoring the\nsubmissions made before