THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JOINT ORGANISATION ,LUCKNOW vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

Appeals stand allowed accordingly

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.125 To 127/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 The Addl. District Magistrate, (Land Acquisition) Joint Organisation, Room No-42, Lucknow, Up-226001 Tan: Lkna07354E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

section clearly exempts the payer from attracting any liability to deduct TDS in two cases (a) where total compensation to a resident in any year does not exceed 2.50Lakhs or (b) where compensation is paid in pursuance of any award or agreement which has been exempted from levy of income tax u/s 96

THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JOINT ORGANISATION ,LUCKNOW vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

Appeals stand allowed accordingly

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.125 To 127/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 To 2019-20 The Addl. District Magistrate, (Land Acquisition) Joint Organisation, Room No-42, Lucknow, Up-226001 Tan: Lkna07354E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

section clearly exempts the payer from attracting any liability to deduct TDS in two cases (a) where total compensation to a resident in any year does not exceed 2.50Lakhs or (b) where compensation is paid in pursuance of any award or agreement which has been exempted from levy of income tax u/s 96

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

TDS provision under section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is\nestimated.\n\n4. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow-III has erred on facts & law while\nsustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,000/- being disallowances of expenses\nunder section 40A(3) of the Act, where profit is estimated.\n\n5. Because the Ld. CIT(A) Lucknow

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)

96,539/-. This closing balance was added by the Assessing Officer, under section 68 of the Act, as unexplained cash credit, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). This has been challenged by way of Ground no.2 before us. 12. Further, during the year under consideration, the assessee had also spent an amount of Rs.5,42,86,466/- towards

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 on purchase of goods for which payment is made to suppliers. In any case the provisions of section 40(a) (ia) of the Act do not provide for estimated disallowance of the nature made by the AO. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 6,95,21,880/- made by the AO is deleted giving relief to the appellant

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

96,50,131/- to the extent of six sundry creditor which ITA. No.139/LKW/2022 Page 6 of 158 were not solely based on the admission of appellant made during survey before the survey party but based on the spot enquiry made by the ld.AO through inspector and also addition on account of extra profit on the shortage of stock

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

96,50,131/- to the extent of six sundry creditor which ITA. No.139/LKW/2022 Page 6 of 158 were not solely based on the admission of appellant made during survey before the survey party but based on the spot enquiry made by the ld.AO through inspector and also addition on account of extra profit on the shortage of stock

DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. PROJECTS CORPORATION LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

TDS out of total taxes payable, which is also against the provision of section 198 and 199 of the Income Tax Act.” 2. The Grounds taken by the Revenue in ITA No. 374/Lkw/2020 read as under: “1. The Ld. CIT(A). Lucknow had erred in law, and facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 57,96

DCIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. PROJECTS CORPORATION LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

TDS out of total taxes payable, which is also against the provision of section 198 and 199 of the Income Tax Act.” 2. The Grounds taken by the Revenue in ITA No. 374/Lkw/2020 read as under: “1. The Ld. CIT(A). Lucknow had erred in law, and facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 57,96

DCIT, RANGE-1, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. PROJECTS CORPORATION LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

TDS out of total taxes payable, which is also against the provision of section 198 and 199 of the Income Tax Act.” 2. The Grounds taken by the Revenue in ITA No. 374/Lkw/2020 read as under: “1. The Ld. CIT(A). Lucknow had erred in law, and facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 57,96

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

96,471/-\n| | Agarwal\n| Shri R. K. Singhla | 28.10.2016 | 1,34,986/- | 40,496/- | 31,992/-\n\n2. In compliance to above show cause notices, the deductor assessee branch has\nnot submitted anything in the matter. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS),\nKanpur, passed an order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated\n29.03.2023

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

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

TDS on Fees, Training and\nPlacement expenses. Hence, the AO made the disallowance of Rs.\n7,75,508/- @ 25% out of such expenses. The assessee could not provide\nany reason before Ld. CIT(A) as to why these vouchers were not produced\nbefore the Ld. AO. It is respectfully submitted that Hon'ble Bench may\nkindly consider the submission

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

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

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

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

M/S ALLIANCE BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Alliance Builders & Asst.Commissioner Of V. Contractors Ltd Income Tax, Central Circle-2 C/O 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Allen Ganj, Kanpur. Pan:Aaeca8217A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 11 2024 O R D E R

96,420/-. However, the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.2,01,37,531/-, being book profit, under the provision of Section 115JB of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, this case was referred for special audit under section 142(2A) of the Act vide order dated 21.03.2014. The Page 3 of 33 assessee agitated against the aforesaid order

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

96,15,73,429/-\nAs per formula given in Rule 8D(ii) for the current year, disallowance was to be\nworked out as under: AxB/C, i.e. 116610727 x 159368990/9611573429 =\n19335162 i.e. Rs. 1,93,35, 162/- =\nFurther in terms of Rule 8D(iii), disallowance was proposed as under: Half\npercent of average investment

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

96 (Bom) and it was prayed that the deduction may kindly be allowed to it. It was submitted that the provision for fall in value of securities was actually the amortization of premium paid on the investment, as they were purchased at a price more than its face value. Therefore, the premium paid, had to be amortized over the period