ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

226 of the Constitution of India, declaring that the consequential notice dated 05.04.2022 issued under section 148 as invalid." 10. We make it clear that having disposed of this petition on the ground of non-compliance with Section 151A of the Act, we have not expressed any opinion on the other issues as raised in the Writ Petition, which

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

3. The Ld.CIT(A), Lucknow has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.11,93,00,020/-on account of interest on LIC loan without appreciating the fact that deduction of interest on LIC loan from sale is against the tariff order decided by UPERC. 4. The CIT(A), Lucknow has erred

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

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(1)/201(1a) passed by the ITO (TDS) was unerring and in consonance with the settled principles of law. 4) BECAUSE, on the facts

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

TDS proceedings. As such, these were therefore, additional evidences for which no application under Rule 46A had been filed. In view of this, he declined to consider the same and accordingly confirmed the addition by dismissing the appeal. 5. The assessee is aggrieved at this dismissal of the appeal and has accordingly come before us. Sh. Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate

M/S. SAHARA CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Sahara Credit Cooperative V. Jcit (Tds) Society Lucknow Kapoorthala Complex Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Lknso9775D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri J.J. Mehrotra, C.A. & Shri Debashish Mehrotra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 12 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 07 01 2020 O R D E R

3 of 6 of the deductee. On the basis of this information, a letter was issued to the assessee, requiring it to file the corrected form 24Q/26Q. Further, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to the assessee, requiring it to explain as to why penalty under section 271C may not be levied, to which there was no compliance. Hence

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide I

226 ITR 625 (SC).\nDealing with the above amendment brought in by Finance Act, 1987, stated to be\neffective from 1 April, 1988, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:\n\n\"....We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the amendment\nintroduced by the Finance Bill, 1988 was declaratory/clarificatory in\nnature so far as it relates to Section

JIL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

section 14A of the Act. The CIT(A) did\nneither appreciate the facts of the case nor legal aspects of\nthe case and confirmed the addition.\nMoreover, with a view to assist the Hon'ble Bench, following\npapers are placed in paper book.\n(i)\nCopies of correspondences made with the foreign\nagents are placed at pages

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER-(EXEPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S GRAMEEN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2014-15

TDS and exclusive of service tax after submission of final report. Total payment made was Rs. 78,652/- inclusive of service tax (12%) and Education cess (3%). Dr. J.L Dwivedi was paid for specific task for "designing and implementation of Agriculture based livelihood strengthening programme within the project in appellant society as well as partners location in Eastern