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:-

disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act 1961 amounting to Rs.86,96,73,557/- ignoring the fact section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194C of the I.T. Act is applicable in case of carrying out any work including supply of labour for carrying out any work. 3. The CIT(A), Lucknow, has erred

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

194C of the Act. In this context reference is invited to prescribed repart formats under Section 44AB and under Section 142(2A) of the Act. It is requested that the addition may kindly be deleted. 7(4) I have examined the facts and circumstances of the case. I have examined the findings of the Assessing Officer and the submissions

KWALITY RESTAURANT,KANPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 Kwality Restaurant V. The Cit(A) 16/97, The Mall Delhi Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaafk8712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.9.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 115 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Which Is Also Supported By An Affidavit. 3. I Have Gone Through The Application For Condonation Of Delay As Well As The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee & Heard The Contention Of The Ld. D.R. On The Issue Of Condonation Of Delay. The Ld. D.R. Has Objected To The Condonatiion Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Is Shifting The Blame Of Delay On Its Counsel. 4. Having Considered The Reasons Explained By The Assessee In The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That The Assessee Has Explained The Cause Of Delay That Due To An Oversight Of The Counsel Of The Assessee, Necessary Steps For Filing

6. The assessee has raised the following rounds: 1. That the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in disallowing Rs.2,38,295.00 being Employees contribution towards P.F. and ESI, which though paid Page 3 of 26 beyond the prescribed time limit as given in the aforesaid Acts, were paid before the end of the previous year

SRI SURESH KHATRI,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(4), KANPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-14

sections 194C and 195 will not apply. ' I.T.A. No.781/Lkw/2017 Assessment Year:2013-14 5 5. From the reading of the above circular, it is clear that the disallowance was not required to be made. Accordingly, we delete the disallowance sustained by the CIT(A). 6

PUSHPENDRA SINGH,RAEBARELI vs. DCIT CIRCLE,, FAIZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Pushpendra Singh V. Dcit Circle, 680, Amar Nagar, Raebareli Faizabad/National E- (U.P)-229001. Assessment Centre Delhi Pan:Axbps1905L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

194C of the Act. The total addition made by the AD as part of all these grounds in Rs.30,47,006 consisting of 03 disallowances namely labour charges Rs.10.18,789, freight and machine expenses Rs.17.97,173 & outward job work expenses Rs 2,31,744 All the disallowances are 30% of the total expenses claimed by the appellant. These three heads

SHRI SUDHANSHU RASTOGI,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri. Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Sudhanshu Rastogi V. The Acit 217, Eldeco Green Range 1 Gomti Nagar Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Acfpr9504B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri S. H. Usmani, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 29 11 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 12 2022 O R D E R

194C of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that once these are purchase items, the provisions of section 40 (a)(ia) of the I.T. Act for non-deduction of TDS does not apply. On the other hand, the CIT (DR) heavily relied on the assessment order and that of the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), KANPUR vs. M/S. SPFL SECURITIES LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2011-12 Joint Cit (Osd) V. M/S Spfl Securities Ltd. Kanpur C/O S.A. Kapoor & Co. 13Th Floor, Himalaya House 23, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Tan/Pan:Aabcs2452C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R. Respondent By: Shri Sudhindra Jain, Fca Date Of Hearing: 07 03 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 03 2019

disallowance under section 40(ia) of the Income Tax Act for violation of the provisions of section 194H / 194C and made addition of Rs.81,52,443/- and Rs. 59,27,785/- respectively. We find in appeal the learned CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO and such reasoning of the CIT(A) has already been reproduced in the preceding

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

6. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts on both for disallowing the exemption u/s 11 and 12, u/s 154 by challenging the charitable activities of the authority and by discussing the various decisions of the higher courts without understanding the fact that section 154 is a mistake apparent from records not it is applicable

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

6. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts on both for disallowing the exemption u/s 11 and 12, u/s 154 by challenging the charitable activities of the authority and by discussing the various decisions of the higher courts without understanding the fact that section 154 is a mistake apparent from records not it is applicable

DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MORADABAD

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

6. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts on both for disallowing the exemption u/s 11 and 12, u/s 154 by challenging the charitable activities of the authority and by discussing the various decisions of the higher courts without understanding the fact that section 154 is a mistake apparent from records not it is applicable

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

6. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts on both for disallowing the exemption u/s 11 and 12, u/s 154 by challenging the charitable activities of the authority and by discussing the various decisions of the higher courts without understanding the fact that section 154 is a mistake apparent from records not it is applicable

SHRI MANOJ GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the department and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Manoj Gupta Acit, Range-3 V. B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, 27/2, P.K. Complex, Raja Lucknow-226024. Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Range-3 V. Manoj Gupta 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, Marg, P. K. Complex, Lucknow- Lucknow-226024. 226001. Pan: Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: Both These Appeals Arise Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-1, Lucknow [Hereinafter Referred As To “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred As To “The Act”] Dated 18.09.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. While Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Ita. No.444/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Department. As The Issues Involved In Both These Appeals Are Similar & Arise Out Of The Same Orders, The Appeals Are Taken Up For Disposal Together. The Grounds Of Appeal In Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Are As Under: -

194C of the Act was being received by the assessee. The assessee had filed all the VAT return for the relevant period and furnished copies of orders passed by the VAT Department for the year under consideration as well as previous year. Therefore, the purchase of materials and such expenses in the year under consideration and past year could

D.C.I.T., RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. SHRI MANOJ GUPTA, LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the department and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Manoj Gupta Acit, Range-3 V. B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, 27/2, P.K. Complex, Raja Lucknow-226024. Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Range-3 V. Manoj Gupta 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai B-1/76, Sector K, Aliganj, Marg, P. K. Complex, Lucknow- Lucknow-226024. 226001. Pan: Aeopgg7740K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: Both These Appeals Arise Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-1, Lucknow [Hereinafter Referred As To “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred As To “The Act”] Dated 18.09.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. While Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Ita. No.444/Lkw/2020 Has Been Filed By The Department. As The Issues Involved In Both These Appeals Are Similar & Arise Out Of The Same Orders, The Appeals Are Taken Up For Disposal Together. The Grounds Of Appeal In Ita. No.355/Lkw/2020 Are As Under: -

194C of the Act was being received by the assessee. The assessee had filed all the VAT return for the relevant period and furnished copies of orders passed by the VAT Department for the year under consideration as well as previous year. Therefore, the purchase of materials and such expenses in the year under consideration and past year could