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]

section 201 of the Act is applicable to financial year 2010-11?’ And if answer to it is in affirmative colour, then we have to ITAT-Lucknow Page 3 of 6 State Bank of India Vs DCIT(TDS

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

3 of Form No.10. Furthermore, he noted that the original Form No. 10-B furnished with the return had contained a note that there is no income accumulated or set apart for specified purposes under section 11(2). Thus, he held that the assessee had failed to meet the requirements of section 11(2)(a) of the Act and therefore

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

3 of Form No.10. Furthermore, he noted that the original Form No. 10-B furnished with the return had contained a note that there is no income accumulated or set apart for specified purposes under section 11(2). Thus, he held that the assessee had failed to meet the requirements of section 11(2)(a) of the Act and therefore

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

3 of Form No.10. Furthermore, he noted that the original Form No. 10-B furnished with the return had contained a note that there is no income accumulated or set apart for specified purposes under section 11(2). Thus, he held that the assessee had failed to meet the requirements of section 11(2)(a) of the Act and therefore

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). 3) 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

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

3 of Form No.10. Furthermore, he noted that the original Form No. 10-B furnished with the return had contained a note that there is no income accumulated or set apart for specified purposes under section 11(2). Thus, he held that the assessee had failed to meet the requirements of section 11(2)(a) of the Act and therefore

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

3 of Form No. 10. Furthermore, he noted that the original Form No. 10-B furnished with the return had contained a note that there is no income accumulated or set apart for specified purposes under section 11(2). Thus, he held that the assessee had failed to meet the requirements of section

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

3 of Form No.10. Furthermore, he noted that the original Form No. 10-B furnished with the return had contained a note that there is no income accumulated or set apart for specified purposes under section 11(2). Thus, he held that the assessee had failed to meet the requirements of section 11(2)(a) of the Act and therefore

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

3,09,576/- paid to the employees by the bank (where the journey has been taken outside India) is to be considered as the amount for which the bank is to be treated as deemed defaulter as per provisions of section I.T.A. No.76, 22, 304 & 305/Lkw/2017 19 201(1). This amount is confirmed. The interest u/s 201(1A) determined

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

3,09,576/- paid to the employees by the bank (where the journey has been taken outside India) is to be considered as the amount for which the bank is to be treated as deemed defaulter as per provisions of section I.T.A. No.76, 22, 304 & 305/Lkw/2017 19 201(1). This amount is confirmed. The interest u/s 201(1A) determined

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

3,09,576/- paid to the employees by the bank (where the journey has been taken outside India) is to be considered as the amount for which the bank is to be treated as deemed defaulter as per provisions of section I.T.A. No.76, 22, 304 & 305/Lkw/2017 19 201(1). This amount is confirmed. The interest u/s 201(1A) determined

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

3,09,576/- paid to the employees by the bank (where the journey has been taken outside India) is to be considered as the amount for which the bank is to be treated as deemed defaulter as per provisions of section I.T.A. No.76, 22, 304 & 305/Lkw/2017 19 201(1). This amount is confirmed. The interest u/s 201(1A) determined

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 u/s 253(3

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 u/s 253(3

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

3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in not appreciating that the discount / compensation passed to the customers equivalent to the 12th instalment of GHS Scheme was not in the nature of any interest and, therefore, there was no default within the meaning of section 201(1)/201

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

3. That the learned ITO(TDS) and CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the payment made to staff not of contractual nature and thus section 194C is not applicable on such payment. The nature of such payment is such as it will be liable to TDS under section 192 and the payment made is less than

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

3. That the learned ITO(TDS) and CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the payment made to staff not of contractual nature and thus section 194C is not applicable on such payment. The nature of such payment is such as it will be liable to TDS under section 192 and the payment made is less than

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

3. That the learned ITO(TDS) and CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the payment made to staff not of contractual nature and thus section 194C is not applicable on such payment. The nature of such payment is such as it will be liable to TDS under section 192 and the payment made is less than