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

In the result, appeals vide I

disallowances to\nthe extent of Rs.59619661/-\nremaining deduction of Rs.\n3164146/- is sustained\nconsidering the earlier order of\nCIT(A) dt. 19/12/2023.\n[Para 8.16 Page 102]\nAppeal filed by\nAssessee ITA\n17/LKW/2024 &\nCO1/LKW/2025\n07.01.2025 along\nwith other legal\ngrounds.\n\n(A.2) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal\n(\"ITAT\" for short), separate paper

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

disallowance of job charges, the addition on which, incidentally, has been deleted by the ld. CIT(A). To reiterate, the assessee had been asked to show cause with regard to the following items:- (i) Applicability of the provisions of section 195

M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

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

disallowance of job charges, the addition on which, incidentally, has been deleted by the ld. CIT(A). To reiterate, the assessee had been asked to show cause with regard to the following items:- (i) Applicability of the provisions of section 195

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)

disallowed, in the light of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). 3 A.Y. 2014-15 M/s Tirubala International Pvt. Ltd. In response, it was submitted that these payments would not fall within the scope of, ‘fee for technical services’ for which tax was liable to be deducted under section 195

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

section 153C has been approved by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. Page 13 of 24 Disallowance of Commissioner paid to the Foreign Agent: The assessee company has paid a sum of Rs.83,89,773/- to the Overseas entities and debited in the Profit & Loss Account under the head ‘Sales Promotion with TDS u/s 195

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

disallowances to the extent of Rs. 59619661/- remaining deduction of Rs. 3164146/- is sustained considering the earlier order of CIT(A) dt. 19/12/2023. [Para 8.16 Page 102] Appeal filed by Assessee ITA 17/LKW/2024 & CO1/LKW/2025 07.01.2025 along with other legal grounds. (A.2) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT" for short), separate paper books were filed

AJAY ARORA,KANPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, KANPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora

195 and, in its absence, a disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i). Also would be required concomitantly is the expenditure incurred by OD towards rendering those services inasmuch as the same only would yield the income component of the receipt, on which tax is chargeable, and was accordingly liable to be deducted. The decision in Transmission Corporation

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

section of society for \ncommercial area as certain percentage has to be made available for local shops and \nshops for barber, vegetable vendor etc. which are disposed-off through lottery \nsystem. It is this leftover part from 5% of saleable area that is sold though auction. \nFurthermore, the disposal of residential properties is done by an Authority as per \nthe

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

section of society for \ncommercial area as certain percentage has to be made available for local shops and \nshops for barber, vegetable vendor etc. which are disposed-off through lottery \nsystem. It is this leftover part from 5% of saleable area that is sold though auction. \nFurthermore, the disposal of residential properties is done by an Authority as per \nthe

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

disallowance cannot be made in view of this Circular. Circular No. 723 is reproduced below: Circular: No. 723, dated 19-9-1995 1. Representations have been received regarding the scope of sections 172, 194C and 195

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

195/- u/s 115JB as deemed income suggesting that on the income determined u/s 115JB of the Act was found to higher than the tax worked out on the income determined under the normal provisions of the Act. 4. Vide Para (2) of the notice under section 142(1) dated 26.09.2013, it was specifically required to furnish copy of Audit Report

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

disallowance by holding that the assessee had not deducted tax on source which was required to be deducted. Aggrieved with the same, the assessee came before the ITAT and the ITAT observed that the ld. CIT(A) had travelled on a different footing, by mentioning the provisions of section 195

M/S RAHMAN INDUSTRIES LTD,KANPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for

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

section 195 of the Act, 1961. 9. Because the authorities below have erred on facts and in law in holding that though the expenditure of Rs.17,04,884/- in India. The disallowance

M/S RAHMAN INDUSTRIES LTD,KANPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for

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

section 195 of the Act, 1961. 9. Because the authorities below have erred on facts and in law in holding that though the expenditure of Rs.17,04,884/- in India. The disallowance

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

section 11(2). Arguing on the issue of Form No. 10, the ld. Special Counsel argued that matters that had to be examined was whether the application was genuine or not? Whether the funds have been applied for specified purposes? Because the allowability was based on application of income. On the issue of infrastructure fund, Vambay fund and revolving fund

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

section 11(2). Arguing on the issue of Form No. 10, the ld. Special Counsel argued that matters that had to be examined was whether the application was genuine or not? Whether the funds have been applied for specified purposes? Because the allowability was based on application of income. On the issue of infrastructure fund, Vambay fund and revolving fund

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

section 11(2). Arguing on the issue of Form No. 10, the ld. Special Counsel argued that matters that had to be examined was whether the application was genuine or not? Whether the funds have been applied for specified purposes? Because the allowability was based on application of income. On the issue of infrastructure fund, Vambay fund and revolving fund

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

section 11(2). Arguing on the issue of Form No. 10, the ld. Special Counsel argued that matters that had to be examined was whether the application was genuine or not? Whether the funds have been applied for specified purposes? Because the allowability was based on application of income. On the issue of infrastructure fund, Vambay fund and revolving fund