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

15) of the I.T. Act (iii)accordingly, the appellant has already been held to be eligible for registration under section 12A in terms of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble ITAT (iv) in pursuance of the said order dated 25.07.2005, the Ld. CIT had already issued certificate of registration under section 12A dated 17.01.2006 which covers the year under

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

15) of the I.T. Act (iii)accordingly, the appellant has already been held to be eligible for registration under section 12A in terms of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble ITAT (iv) in pursuance of the said order dated 25.07.2005, the Ld. CIT had already issued certificate of registration under section 12A dated 17.01.2006 which covers the year under

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

15) of the I.T. Act (iii)accordingly, the appellant has already been held to be eligible for registration under section 12A in terms of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble ITAT (iv) in pursuance of the said order dated 25.07.2005, the Ld. CIT had already issued certificate of registration under section 12A dated 17.01.2006 which covers the year under

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

15) of the I.T. Act (iii)accordingly, the appellant has already been held to be eligible for registration under section 12A in terms of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble ITAT (iv) in pursuance of the said order dated 25.07.2005, the Ld. CIT had already issued certificate of registration under section 12A dated 17.01.2006 which covers the year under

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)

section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act and pointed out that against total receipts of Rs.1537223917/-, the assessee had net profit of Rs.95,60,17,385.48/- during the year and funds generated out of profit year after year were invested into fixed deposits and other deposits which resulted in interest income of Rs.29,44,83,617.60/-, which also included

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)

section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act and pointed out that against total receipts of Rs.1537223917/-, the assessee had net profit of Rs.95,60,17,385.48/- during the year and funds generated out of profit year after year were invested into fixed deposits and other deposits which resulted in interest income of Rs.29,44,83,617.60/-, which also included

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)

section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act and pointed out that against total receipts of Rs.1537223917/-, the assessee had net profit of Rs.95,60,17,385.48/- during the year and funds generated out of profit year after year were invested into fixed deposits and other deposits which resulted in interest income of Rs.29,44,83,617.60/-, which also included

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)

section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act and pointed out that against total receipts of Rs.1537223917/-, the assessee had net profit of Rs.95,60,17,385.48/- during the year and funds generated out of profit year after year were invested into fixed deposits and other deposits which resulted in interest income of Rs.29,44,83,617.60/-, which also included

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

15) of the Act, he denied the exemption under section 11 to the assessee, and the income of the assessee parishad was assessed at Rs.301,97,54,732/- for the assessment years 2007-08 and Rs.225,35,17,400/- for the assessment year 2008-09. 6. Aggrieved by these assessment orders, the assessee filed appeals before

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

15) of the Act, he denied the exemption under section 11 to the assessee, and the income of the assessee parishad was assessed at Rs.301,97,54,732/- for the assessment years 2007-08 and Rs.225,35,17,400/- for the assessment year 2008-09. 6. Aggrieved by these assessment orders, the assessee filed appeals before

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

15) of the Act, he denied the exemption under section 11 to the assessee, and the income of the assessee parishad was assessed at Rs.301,97,54,732/- for the assessment years 2007-08 and Rs.225,35,17,400/- for the assessment year 2008-09. 6. Aggrieved by these assessment orders, the assessee filed appeals before

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

15) of the Act, he denied the exemption under section 11 to the assessee, and the income of the 16 ITA Nos.532 & 533/LKW/2014 ITA Nos.534 & 535/LKW/2014 ITA Nos.21 & 22/LKW/2019 U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad assessee parishad was assessed at Rs.301,97,54,732/- for the assessment years 2007-08 and Rs.225,35,17,400/- for the assessment year

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

15) of the Act, he denied the exemption under section 11 to the assessee, and the income of the assessee parishad was assessed at Rs.301,97,54,732/- for the assessment years 2007-08 and Rs.225,35,17,400/- for the assessment year 2008-09. 6. Aggrieved by these assessment orders, the assessee filed appeals before

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

15) of the Act, he denied the exemption under section 11 to the assessee, and the income of the assessee parishad was assessed at Rs.301,97,54,732/- for the assessment years 2007-08 and Rs.225,35,17,400/- for the assessment year 2008-09. 6. Aggrieved by these assessment orders, the assessee filed appeals before

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

TDS : Rs.1,699/- iii) Addition under section 14A of the Act : Rs.36,310/- 14. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed these three additions/disallowances. The grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming these three additions made by the Assessing Officer over and above subject matter of the order passed under section

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

TDS : Rs.1,699/- iii) Addition under section 14A of the Act : Rs.36,310/- 14. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed these three additions/disallowances. The grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming these three additions made by the Assessing Officer over and above subject matter of the order passed under section

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

15. The next issue which we must examine is whether the commission to Foreign Commission Agents (including wholly owned subsidiaries) was in the nature of fees for technical services on which tax was required to be deducted under section 195(1). We have perused the agency agreements concluded by the assessee with its wholly owned subsidiaries and also with some

M/S. LALA BHARAT LAL AND SONS,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas the stay petitions are dismissed

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

section 206C came up for consideration of the ITAT Ahmedabad ‘B’ Bench in the case of ITA No.14, 15 & 16/LKW/2019& S.P. No.04, 05 & 06/LKW/2019 Page 6 of 15 ‘Navine Fluorine International Ltd. vs. ACIT(TDS

M/S. LALA BHARAT LAL AND SONS,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas the stay petitions are dismissed

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

section 206C came up for consideration of the ITAT Ahmedabad ‘B’ Bench in the case of ITA No.14, 15 & 16/LKW/2019& S.P. No.04, 05 & 06/LKW/2019 Page 6 of 15 ‘Navine Fluorine International Ltd. vs. ACIT(TDS