USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

14)(iii) deals specifically that agricultural land, which falls under municipal limits, that’s why those are capital assets and capital gains on transfer of such land is chargeable to tax. Said situations of capital gains fall under clause (a) of section 10(37) of the Act. vi. Appellant never claimed exemption from income tax for transfer of agricultural land

SUPERHOUSE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. CIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 356 & 357/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2014-15 & A.Ys. 2015-16 Superhouse Limited, 150 Feet Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Road, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010 International Taxation-3, Delhi Pan: Aabcs9328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cit, (International Taxation)-3, Delhi Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act For The A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16, Both Dated 29.03.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit Has Set Aside The Earlier Orders Of The Assessing Officer For Making Of Fresh Orders In Accordance With The Directions Issued By Her. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act & In Doing So, Has Sought To Substitute His Opinion With The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed After Undertaking Extensive & Detailed Consideration Of The Issue By The Ito (Tds). 2. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming The Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed By The Ito (Tds) Was Unerring & In Consonance With The Settled Principles Of Law. 3. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order While Premised On An Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Further Suffers From Non-Application Of Mind Since The Submissions Of The Assessee Have Not Been Considered [As Illustrated Infra]. A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16

14,677/- and during the F.Y. 2014-15 amounting to Rs. 23,72,46,226/- without deducting any tax at source. The ld. AO records that during proceedings initiated under section 201(1)/201(1A), the assessee was asked to file complete details of tax of tax deducted on commission alongwith documentary evidence and copy of TDS

BINDU KUMAR,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-1(1), LUCKNOW-NEW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS refund received 4,48,050.00 Add: Salary Cheque returned 7,818.00 Add: Credit against OD limit received 8,99,000.00 Add: Cash Deposited in bank 3,92,500.00 Add: UL received back 3,14,850.00 Total Credits in Bank 3,35,18,800.23 2 Bindu Kumar A.Y. 2017-18 Without considering the above facts and records the assessment

UP GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WELFARE,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result appeals in ITA No

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.743 & 746/Lkw/2024 & Ita No. 30/Lkw/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 U.P. Government Employees Vs. Assessing Officer, Nfac Welfare, Lucknow Pan:Aaatu0957A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 23.10.2024, 28.10.2024 & 2.01.2024 In The Appeals Preferred Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3), The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aac(1) & The Penalty Order Under Section 270A. The Grounds Of Appeal In These Three Appeals Are As Under:-

14,62,773/-. 7. Following the passing of the order under section 143(3), the ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Income Tax Act on account of misc. expenses and other provisions mentioned in his order amounting to Rs.13,07,53,673/- and a show cause notice under section 274 r.w.s. 270A

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 194LA of the Act. In view of the aforestated failure, the Ld. AO held the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ for non/short deduction of tax u/s 201(1) of the Act and consequently determined the liability for non/short deduction of TDS and interest chargeable thereon u/s 201(1A) of the Act as under; Short/Non Total Demand Interest

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 194LA of the Act. In view of the aforestated failure, the Ld. AO held the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ for non/short deduction of tax u/s 201(1) of the Act and consequently determined the liability for non/short deduction of TDS and interest chargeable thereon u/s 201(1A) of the Act as under; Short/Non Total Demand Interest

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 194LA of the Act. In view of the aforestated failure, the Ld. AO held the assessee as ‘assessee in default’ for non/short deduction of tax u/s 201(1) of the Act and consequently determined the liability for non/short deduction of TDS and interest chargeable thereon u/s 201(1A) of the Act as under; Short/Non Total Demand Interest

S.B.I RBO III (ADMIN OFFICE),KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

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

14-15 State Bank of India, Vs. Dy.C.I.T. (TDS), Fund Settlement Link Office, Kanpur. Kanpur. TAN:KNPSO0810F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Pradeep Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing 07/04/2022 Date of pronouncement 27/04/2022 I.T.A. No.76, 22, 304 & 305/Lkw/2017 2 O R D E R PER BENCH: These appeals have been filed by different assessees

STATE BANK OF INDIA,,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

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

14-15 State Bank of India, Vs. Dy.C.I.T. (TDS), Fund Settlement Link Office, Kanpur. Kanpur. TAN:KNPSO0810F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Pradeep Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing 07/04/2022 Date of pronouncement 27/04/2022 I.T.A. No.76, 22, 304 & 305/Lkw/2017 2 O R D E R PER BENCH: These appeals have been filed by different assessees

STATE BANK OF INDIA,,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

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

14-15 State Bank of India, Vs. Dy.C.I.T. (TDS), Fund Settlement Link Office, Kanpur. Kanpur. TAN:KNPSO0810F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Pradeep Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing 07/04/2022 Date of pronouncement 27/04/2022 I.T.A. No.76, 22, 304 & 305/Lkw/2017 2 O R D E R PER BENCH: These appeals have been filed by different assessees

STATE BANK OF INDIA, FUND SETTLEMENT OFFICE,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)-II, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

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

14-15 State Bank of India, Vs. Dy.C.I.T. (TDS), Fund Settlement Link Office, Kanpur. Kanpur. TAN:KNPSO0810F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Pradeep Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing 07/04/2022 Date of pronouncement 27/04/2022 I.T.A. No.76, 22, 304 & 305/Lkw/2017 2 O R D E R PER BENCH: These appeals have been filed by different assessees

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

section 12A of the Income-tax Act. (a)That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 41,94,07,414/- that was transferred to IDRF because appellant had been maintaining Infrastructure Development Reserve Fund (IDRF) as per the Notification dated 15.01.1998 , and money transferred to this fund were

LUCKNOW EVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. I.T.O., LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

section 12A of the Income-tax Act. (a)That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 41,94,07,414/- that was transferred to IDRF because appellant had been maintaining Infrastructure Development Reserve Fund (IDRF) as per the Notification dated 15.01.1998 , and money transferred to this fund were

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

section 12A of the Income-tax Act. (a)That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 41,94,07,414/- that was transferred to IDRF because appellant had been maintaining Infrastructure Development Reserve Fund (IDRF) as per the Notification dated 15.01.1998 , and money transferred to this fund were

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

section 12A of the Income-tax Act. (a)That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 41,94,07,414/- that was transferred to IDRF because appellant had been maintaining Infrastructure Development Reserve Fund (IDRF) as per the Notification dated 15.01.1998 , and money transferred to this fund were

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

section 12A of the Income-tax Act. (a)That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 41,94,07,414/- that was transferred to IDRF because appellant had been maintaining Infrastructure Development Reserve Fund (IDRF) as per the Notification dated 15.01.1998 , and money transferred to this fund were

SAHKARI GANNA VIKAS SAMITI LTD VIKRAMJOT BASTI,VIKRAMJOT vs. INOCME TAX OFFICER BASTI -NEW, INCOME TAX OFFICE BASTI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sahkari Ganna Vikas V. The Income Tax Officer Samiti Ltd. Basti Vikramjot, Basti (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aabas4611B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.12.2024, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-3, Bengaluru For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Co-Operative Societies Act, 1912. The Main Activity Of The Assessee Was Marketing Of Sugar Cane Grown By The Cane Growers, Who Were Members Of The Assessee-Society. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 21.03.2018, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,73,170/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee-Society Had Received Commission From Sugar Mills On Supply Of Sugar Cane Of Rs.70,16,032/-, Which Was Claimed As Exempt In Terms Of Section 80P(2)(A)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act

TDS made under section 194H as commission on receiving has been filed. 8. That the authority below erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction u/s 80P on interest received on investment in form of FDR'S. 9. The addition disallowances are illegal, unjust highly excessive and against the material on record. That the Ld. CIT(A) 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

14,07,91,850/-. The assessment was completed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-VI, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer or simply the AO) on income of Rs, 38,78,73,237/- vide order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Aggrieved with this assessment framed

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)

TDS under section 194C of the Act had been deducted. Therefore the nature of the activities being conducted by the assessee was akin to the activities of the builders, developers and contractors. Therefore, the ld. AO held that since the amount of receipts on account of such activities was in excess of Rs.25 Lacs, the assessee