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

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.\n5. That the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the Learned CIT (Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon'ble Member, IITAT.\n6. 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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

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. 5. That the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the Learned CIT (Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon'ble Member, IITAT. I.T.A. Nos.487

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\n5. That the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the Learned CIT\n(Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon'ble Member,\nIITAT

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.\n5. That the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the Learned CIT\n(Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon'ble Member,\nIITAT.\n6. That

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.\n5.\nThat the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the Learned CIT\n(Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon'ble Member,\nIITAT.\n6.\nThat

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 14A of the Act, amounting to Rs.2,56,56,447/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the aforesaid amount holding that this amount represented interest expenses in relation to making investments, income from which would not be includable in the assessee’s hand. In the impugned appellate order, the learned CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid addition after considering the assessee

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 14A of the Act, amounting to Rs.2,56,56,447/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the aforesaid amount holding that this amount represented interest expenses in relation to making investments, income from which would not be includable in the assessee’s hand. In the impugned appellate order, the learned CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid addition after considering the assessee

DCIT, RANGE-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 14A of the Act, amounting to Rs.2,56,56,447/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the aforesaid amount holding that this amount represented interest expenses in relation to making investments, income from which would not be includable in the assessee’s hand. In the impugned appellate order, the learned CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid addition after considering the assessee

U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, RANGE-VI, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 14A of the Act, amounting to Rs.2,56,56,447/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the aforesaid amount holding that this amount represented interest expenses in relation to making investments, income from which would not be includable in the assessee’s hand. In the impugned appellate order, the learned CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid addition after considering the assessee

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 14A of the Act, amounting to Rs.2,56,56,447/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the aforesaid amount holding that this amount represented interest expenses in relation to making investments, income from which would not be includable in the assessee’s hand. In the impugned appellate order, the learned CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid addition after considering the assessee

VIDYUT TRANSMISSION KARMACHARI VETAN BHOGI CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. CPC BANGALORE/ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowance has been made merely because the return was filed beyond the due date specified u/s 139(1). The due date of filing ITR was 31.10.2019 but the ITR was filed on 01.11.2019 after the delay of merely 25 minutes and was uploaded at 009:25:43 hrs on 01.11.2019. Copy of acknowledgement for filing of ITR is at page

NETPLAST PVT.LTD.,KANPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(3)(1), KANPUR

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

25% on such tax and cess on\nthe addition of Rs.84,00,000/- made u/s.69C of the Act.\nAddition: Rs.84,00,000/-\nSubmissions:\nThe assessee company through its director Shri Arpit Agarwal, duly\nauthorised purchased an agricultural land admeasuring 1.2430\nhectare situated at Gram Raipur, Tehsil Akbarpur, Distt. Kanpur Dehat\nfrom one Smt. Nirmala Devi vide purchase deed executed

M/S. RUPANI FOOTCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR NAGAR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Rupani Footcare V. The Income Tax Officer Private Limited Ward 2(3)(1) 122/334, Shastri Nagar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaecr1354B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

disallowing Rs.1,04,621/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. In appeal, CIT (A) reversed findings of Assessing Officer but on appeal preferred by Revenue, Tribunal restored Assessing Officer’s order and that is how matter came to Karnataka High Court. The question up for consideration was, “whether Tribunal was justified in affirming finding of Assessing Officer and denying

BHAGWANTI RUBBER AND ALLIED PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

disallowing Rs. 1,04,621/ under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. In appeal, CIT (A) reversed findings of Assessing Officer but on appeal preferred by Revenue, Tribunal restored Assessing Officer’s order and that is how matter came to Karnataka High Court. The question up for consideration was, “whether Tribunal was justified in affirming finding of Assessing Officer

JAGMINI MICRO KNIT PVT. LTD,KANPUR vs. DCIT 2(1)(1), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 Jagmani Micro Knit Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit 2, Sarvodaya Nagar Circle 2(1)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaach3405B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Pradeep Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 04 2022 O R D E R

disallowing Rs.1,04,621/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. In appeal, CIT (A) reversed findings of Assessing Officer but on appeal preferred by Revenue, Tribunal restored Assessing Officer’s order and that is how matter came to Karnataka High Court. The question up for consideration was, “whether Tribunal was justified in affirming finding of Assessing Officer and denying

MR. SHITIJ DHAWAN ,KANPUR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER,, SPECIAL RANGE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Shitij Dhawan V. The Assessing Officer 122/235, Fazalganj Special Range Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Acqpd3380G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 03 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 04 2022 O R D E R

disallowing Rs.1,04,621/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. In appeal, CIT (A) reversed findings of Assessing Officer but on appeal preferred by Revenue, Tribunal restored Assessing Officer’s order and that is how matter came to Karnataka High Court. The question up for consideration was, “whether Tribunal was justified in affirming finding of Assessing Officer and denying

RYDERS EQUESTRIAN PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALURU, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2019-20 Ryders Equestrain Products V. The Dy. Cit Pvt. Ltd. Circle 2(1)(I) 50-A, 150, Feet Road Jajmau Lucknow Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaecr3352B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 15 06 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 06 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 29.9.2021, For Assessment Year 2019-20, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

disallowing Rs.1,04,621/- under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. In appeal, CIT (A) reversed findings of Assessing Officer but on appeal preferred by Revenue, Tribunal restored Assessing Officer’s order and that is how matter came to Karnataka High Court. The question up for consideration was, “whether Tribunal was justified in affirming finding of Assessing Officer and denying

CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNIAN, LTD. ,LAKHIPUR KHERI vs. ITO WARD-3(4), LAKHIPUR-1

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

25,716/- by incorrectly stating that the Return was filed beyond the time limit specified u/s 139(1) of I. T. Act and thereby invoking the provisions of section 80AC of I. T. Act , upheld the disallowance