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

TDS and grant the benefit to the assessee as per law. On the issue of charging of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C, holding that the charging of interest was mandatory, he rejected the plea of the assessee but directed the ld. AO to allow the consequential relief that would arise as a result of the decisions made

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

TDS and grant the benefit to the assessee as per law. On the issue of charging of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C, holding that the charging of interest was mandatory, he rejected the plea of the assessee but directed the ld. AO to allow the consequential relief that would arise as a result of the decisions made

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

TDS and grant the benefit to the assessee as per law. On the issue of charging of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C, holding that the charging of interest was mandatory, he rejected the plea of the assessee but directed the ld. AO to allow the consequential relief that would arise as a result of the decisions made

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

TDS and grant the benefit to the assessee as per law. On the issue of charging of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C, holding that the charging of interest was mandatory, he rejected the plea of the assessee but directed the ld. AO to allow the consequential relief that would arise as a result of the decisions made

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). 2. BECAUSE, on the facts and circumstances of the case and 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

THE DISTRICT MINING OFFICER,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), BAREILLY

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

2 meters and as per the Mines Act, 1952 section 3(1), it did not fall within the definition of mining. Accordingly, it was submitted that the exclusion of such digging out of the Mines Act of India, which govern mining and quarrying in India, showed the intention of the legislature to keep the small diggings out of the purview

M/S MOTOR & GENERAL SALES LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Motor & General Sales V. Income Tax Officer Ltd (Tds)-Ii 11, M. G. Marg, Hazratganj, Commissioner Of Income Lucknow-226001. Tax (Appeals-Ii), Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Lknmo0336A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Ca Respondent By: Shri S. H. Usmani, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 06 11 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02 02 2026 O R D E R

section 201(1)/201(1A) of the I. T. Act, 1961 as done by the Assessing Officer. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any or all grounds of appeal at any time before and during the course of the hearing.” 2. The facts of the case are that a survey/verification u/s 133A

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

201(1A) determined by the TDS AO is also being confirmed. 5. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before us. 6. None appeared for the assessee, but, on careful consideration of all the related factors, including smallness of the amount involved and the fact that the issue in the appeal is a neatly identified legal issue

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

201(1A) determined by the TDS AO is also being confirmed. 5. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before us. 6. None appeared for the assessee, but, on careful consideration of all the related factors, including smallness of the amount involved and the fact that the issue in the appeal is a neatly identified legal issue

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

201(1A) determined by the TDS AO is also being confirmed. 5. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before us. 6. None appeared for the assessee, but, on careful consideration of all the related factors, including smallness of the amount involved and the fact that the issue in the appeal is a neatly identified legal issue

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

201(1A) determined by the TDS AO is also being confirmed. 5. The assessee is not satisfied and is in further appeal before us. 6. None appeared for the assessee, but, on careful consideration of all the related factors, including smallness of the amount involved and the fact that the issue in the appeal is a neatly identified legal issue

STATE BANK OF INDIA, OVERSEAS BRANCH, 15/54B, CIVIL LINES, KANPUR,KANPUR vs. DY. CIT(TDS), KANPUR, KANPUR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.186/Lkw/2022 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 State Bank Of India Zonal Office, The Mall Road, Kanpur, Up-208001 Tan: Knps02318B . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tds, Kanpur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent & आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.187/Lkw/2022 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 State Bank Of India Overseas Branch, 15/54B, Civil Lines, Kanpur, Up-208001 Tan: Knps01627D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tds, Kanpur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Sk Sharma [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09/07/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; These Twin Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against The Separate Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045081675(1) & 1045081558(1) Both Dt. 31/08/2022 Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’ In Short] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’ In Short] Confirming The Order Dt. 21/03/2018 Passed U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-51(1), Nagpur [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2011- 12 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter]

201(1A) of the Act levied on such account. ITAT-Lucknow Page 2 of 6 State Bank of India Vs DCIT(TDS) ITA No.186 & 187/LKW/2022 AY:2011-12 3.3 Aggrieved assessee unsuccessfully contested the recovery of non-deducted TDS and imposition of interest in appeal before Ld. NFAC u/s 246A(1)(ha) of the Act. 3.4 Aggrieved by the order

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.186/Lkw/2022 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 State Bank Of India Zonal Office, The Mall Road, Kanpur, Up-208001 Tan: Knps02318B . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tds, Kanpur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent & आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.187/Lkw/2022 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 State Bank Of India Overseas Branch, 15/54B, Civil Lines, Kanpur, Up-208001 Tan: Knps01627D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tds, Kanpur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Sk Sharma [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09/07/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; These Twin Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against The Separate Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045081675(1) & 1045081558(1) Both Dt. 31/08/2022 Orders Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’ In Short] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’ In Short] Confirming The Order Dt. 21/03/2018 Passed U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-51(1), Nagpur [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2011- 12 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter]

201(1A) of the Act levied on such account. ITAT-Lucknow Page 2 of 6 State Bank of India Vs DCIT(TDS) ITA No.186 & 187/LKW/2022 AY:2011-12 3.3 Aggrieved assessee unsuccessfully contested the recovery of non-deducted TDS and imposition of interest in appeal before Ld. NFAC u/s 246A(1)(ha) of the Act. 3.4 Aggrieved by the order

STETE BANK OF INDIA, SMECCC CODE-5030,KANPUR vs. ITO (TDS)-, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 201 and 201(1A) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. 8. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other.” 2. The appeals filed by the assessee are beyond the time limit prescribed

STATE BANK OF INDIA, SMECCC-CODE-5030,KANPUR vs. ITO(TDS)-2, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 201 and 201(1A) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. 8. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other.” 2. The appeals filed by the assessee are beyond the time limit prescribed

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

TDS) and CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in issuing joint show cause notice under section 201(1)/201(1A) read with section 194C of the I.T. Act, 1961, dated 28.02.2014 for financial years 2009-10 to 2012-13 and the impugned order is void ab initio. 2

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

TDS) and CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in issuing joint show cause notice under section 201(1)/201(1A) read with section 194C of the I.T. Act, 1961, dated 28.02.2014 for financial years 2009-10 to 2012-13 and the impugned order is void ab initio. 2

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

TDS) and CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in issuing joint show cause notice under section 201(1)/201(1A) read with section 194C of the I.T. Act, 1961, dated 28.02.2014 for financial years 2009-10 to 2012-13 and the impugned order is void ab initio. 2