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 of Rs.23,54,235/- on account of prior period expense without appreciating the fact that the assessee was unable to prove before the assessing officer that the expenses crystallized during the year under consideration. 7. The CIT(A), Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.39,46,18,444/- on account of interest

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

disallowance of LTC/LTA under section 10(5) of IT Act 1961, without appreciating that there was 'reasonable cause' for the said failure as per the provisions of Section 273B of the Act 1961.\n6. That the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the Learned CIT(Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon'ble Member, ITAT.\n7. That

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-6, 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 Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. The Dy. Cit Nigam Ltd. Range Vi Visheshwaraiya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Dy. Cit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Range Vi Nigam Ltd. Lucknow Visheshwaraiya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan: Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Department By: Smt. Sheela Chopra, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04 10 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 12 2021 O R D E R

disallow the expenses. 8. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that an identical issue, involved in the assessee’s own case in the appeals as mentioned below, has also been considered by the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal and decided in favour of the assessee: (1) I.T.A. Nos. 317/LKW/2017 and 314/LKW/2017, for A. Y. 2010-11. (2) I.T.A

M/S U.P RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. The Dy. Cit Nigam Ltd. Range Vi Visheshwaraiya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Dy. Cit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Range Vi Nigam Ltd. Lucknow Visheshwaraiya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan: Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Department By: Smt. Sheela Chopra, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04 10 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 12 2021 O R D E R

disallow the expenses. 8. The ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted that an identical issue, involved in the assessee’s own case in the appeals as mentioned below, has also been considered by the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal and decided in favour of the assessee: (1) I.T.A. Nos. 317/LKW/2017 and 314/LKW/2017, for A. Y. 2010-11. (2) I.T.A

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

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

disallowance of LTC/LTA under section 10(5)\nof IT Act 1961, without appreciating that there was 'reasonable\ncause' for the said failure as per the provisions of Section 273B\nof the Act 1961.\n6. That the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the Learned\nCIT(Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon'ble\nMember, ITAT.\n7. 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

disallowance of LTC/LTA under section 10(5)\nof IT Act 1961, without appreciating that there was 'reasonable\ncause' for the said failure as per the provisions of Section 273B\nof the Act 1961.\n\n6. That the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the Learned\nCIT(Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon'ble\nMember, ITAT

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

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

disallowance of LTC/LTA under section 10(5)\nof IT Act 1961, without appreciating that there was 'reasonable\ncause' for the said failure as per the provisions of Section 273B\nof the Act 1961.\n6.\nThat the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the Learned\nCIT(Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon'ble\nMember, ITAT.\n7.\nThat

SHRI JASMINDER SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-14

section 201(1). Accordingly, we are of the view that no disallowance ought to have been made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. But, Ld. Senior

STATE BANK OF INDIA,SMECC, ZONAL OFFICE,KANPUR vs. ACIT9TDS), KANPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 State Bank Of India V. Dcit (Tds) The Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar- 7/119, Radiance Town, 208001. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar-208002. Pan:Knps02318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 State Bank Of India V. Addl. Cit (Tds) The Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar- 7/119, Radiance Town, 208001. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar-208002. Pan: Knps02318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21 07 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 07 2025 O R D E R

section 201 and 201(1A) of the IT Act 1961. (8) That the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the learned CIT(Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon’ble Member, ITAT. (9) That the Learned Additional CI T (A) has erred in law in rejecting the appeal arbitrarily and in utter disregard of submission made before

STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE,KANPUR vs. DY. CIT (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 State Bank Of India V. Dcit (Tds) The Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar- 7/119, Radiance Town, 208001. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar-208002. Pan:Knps02318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 State Bank Of India V. Addl. Cit (Tds) The Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar- 7/119, Radiance Town, 208001. Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur Nagar-208002. Pan: Knps02318B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21 07 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 07 2025 O R D E R

section 201 and 201(1A) of the IT Act 1961. (8) That the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the learned CIT(Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon’ble Member, ITAT. (9) That the Learned Additional CI T (A) has erred in law in rejecting the appeal arbitrarily and in utter disregard of submission made before

METAL CANS AND CLOSURES PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ACIT-5, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2014-15 Metal Cans & Closures Pvt. Asstt. Commissioner Of V. Ltd. Income Tax-5 Plot No.23, Panki Indus. Area, Vaibhav Bhawan, Site-1, Panki,Kanpur-208022. 15/295-A, Civil Lines, Kanpur-208001. Pan:Aaicm2233Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 11 2024 O R D E R

disallowance in the terms of proviso to Section 201(1) of the Act. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

M/S. DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 M/S District Cooperative Bank Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Near Civil Court Road, Vs. Income Tax, Circle-I, Bareilly Shahjahanpur, U.P. Pan:Aaaad8759N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Amit Singh Chauhan, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 O R D E R

disallow us the benefit of section 197A by sustaining the addition made by ld. AO on the basis of non-delivering the same to the prescribed authority under section 197A(2). 3. That the assesse relied on the similar case law in ITA No.1854/Bang/2016 The Karur Vysya Bank Limited, ... vs Acit- Tds Circle, Hubli on 9 August, 2017 paid

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S PRAG INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Videshri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 40A(2) ignoring the fact that the AO has made the addition in absence of any reason provided by the assessee for the excess payment. 6. The CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.3,90,698/- made on account of disallowance of bad debt written off without appreciating the fact that

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

201(SC). Ld AR also pointed out that prior to the amendment to section 11(2) wef 1.04.2016, there was no time limit of the nature referred to by Ld Special Counsel. With regard to the submissions of the ld. Special Counsel that the purpose for the accumulation had not been specified and were general, the ld. AR submitted that

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

201(SC). Ld AR also pointed out that prior to the amendment to section 11(2) wef 1.04.2016, there was no time limit of the nature referred to by Ld Special Counsel. With regard to the submissions of the ld. Special Counsel that the purpose for the accumulation had not been specified and were general, the ld. AR submitted that

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

201(SC). Ld AR also pointed out that prior to the amendment to section 11(2) wef 1.04.2016, there was no time limit of the nature referred to by Ld Special Counsel. With regard to the submissions of the ld. Special Counsel that the purpose for the accumulation had not been specified and were general, the ld. AR submitted that

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

201(SC). Ld AR also pointed out that prior to the amendment to section 11(2) wef 1.04.2016, there was no time limit of the nature referred to by Ld Special Counsel. With regard to the submissions of the ld. Special Counsel that the purpose for the accumulation had not been specified and were general, the ld. AR submitted that

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

201(SC). Ld AR also pointed out that prior to the amendment to section 11(2) wef 1.04.2016, there was no time limit of the nature referred to by Ld Special Counsel. With regard to the submissions of the ld. Special Counsel that the purpose for the accumulation had not been specified and were general, the ld. AR submitted that

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

201(SC). Ld AR also pointed out that prior to the amendment to section 11(2) wef 1.04.2016, there was no time limit of the nature referred to by Ld Special Counsel. With regard to the submissions of the ld. Special Counsel that the purpose for the accumulation had not been specified and were general, the ld. AR submitted that