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

TDS had been deducted. In response to these notices, the assessee furnished another reply on 31.08.2021 in which the details were submitted and legal arguments on the necessity to deduct or otherwise were also furnished. Furthermore, copies of agency agreement and Declaration Form from commission agents that they were not having any permanent establishment in India were furnished. Various case

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

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

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. 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 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

BASIC SHIKSHA ADHIKARI, SERV SHIKSHA ABHIYAN,AYODHYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFCER (TDS), FAIZABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

16 03 2020 Date of pronouncement: 19 03 2020 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: These are assessee’s appeals against a composite order of the ld. CIT(A)-IV, Lucknow dated 26/12/2018 for assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14, taking the following common grounds: 1. That the learned ITO(TDS) and CIT(A) has erred

BASIC SHIKSHA ADHIKARI, SERV SHIKSHA ABHIYAN,AYODHYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFCER (TDS), FAIZABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

16 03 2020 Date of pronouncement: 19 03 2020 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: These are assessee’s appeals against a composite order of the ld. CIT(A)-IV, Lucknow dated 26/12/2018 for assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14, taking the following common grounds: 1. That the learned ITO(TDS) and CIT(A) has erred

BASIC SHIKSHA ADHIKARI, SERV SHIKSHA ABHIYAN,AYODHYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFCER (TDS), FAIZABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

16 03 2020 Date of pronouncement: 19 03 2020 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: These are assessee’s appeals against a composite order of the ld. CIT(A)-IV, Lucknow dated 26/12/2018 for assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14, taking the following common grounds: 1. That the learned ITO(TDS) and CIT(A) has erred

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

16-17\n\nI.T.A. Nos.402& 405/Lkw/2025\n Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2022-23\nDy.C.I.T.,\nCentral Circle-2,\nLucknow.\n(Appellant)\nVs. Rakesh Kumar Pandey,\nS/o Shri Surya Narayan Pandey,\nVill-Devarda, Block-Belsar,\nGonda-271401\nPAN:ATIPP6520B\n(Respondent)\n\nI.T.A. No.460/Lkw/2025\n Assessment year:2017-18\nA.C.I.T.,\nCentral Circle-2,\nLucknow.\n(Appellant)\nVs. Rakesh Kumar Pandey,\nS/o Shri

VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW. vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW.

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

TDS deducted as well as the interest there upon is highly excessive, contrary to facts, laws and principles of natural justice and fair play and thus may kindly be ordered to be quashed. 4. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee the assessee company underwent CIRP Proceeding and the Hon'ble NCLT

VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW.

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

TDS deducted as well as the interest there upon is highly excessive, contrary to facts, laws and principles of natural justice and fair play and thus may kindly be ordered to be quashed. 4. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee the assessee company underwent CIRP Proceeding and the Hon'ble NCLT

VIL LIMITED,LUCKNOW. vs. DY. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW., LUCKNOW

In the result, these three appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

TDS deducted as well as the interest there upon is highly excessive, contrary to facts, laws and principles of natural justice and fair play and thus may kindly be ordered to be quashed. 4. Because, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal of the assessee the assessee company underwent CIRP Proceeding and the Hon'ble NCLT

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

TDS on or after 16 February 2015 on the amount paid /reimbursed to the employees of the Bank in respect of LTC/LTA availed, where the employees had visited a foreign city/ country.\ne) That the assessee Bank, while calculating the estimated tax liability of its employees, always consider LFC claim as exempted under section

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

16,032/-, which was claimed as exempt in terms of section 80P(2)(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, ITA No.486/LKW/2025 Page 2 of 15 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’). The assessee had claimed deduction under chapter VI-A of Rs.23,26,033/- and also claimed deduction under section 57 of the Act of Rs.65,50,800/-. The assessee

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

TDS was liable to be made against the compensation payment made by the assessee to the landowners/payee irrespective of nature of such land under compulsory acquisition. In view of aforestated discussion, we hold that the impugned orders passed by the Ld. AO u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act do not represent the correct position law, hence