ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KANPUR vs. M.K.U PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 26.03.2018, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeals of the assessee against the assessment order passed by the ld. AO under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The grounds of appeal and the C.O. are as under:- “1. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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)

250) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As the issues in all these five appeals are common, they are being taken up for disposal by a common order. The grounds of appeal in the various appeals are as under:- “1. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law by allowing the benefit of section

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)

250) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As the issues in all these five appeals are common, they are being taken up for disposal by a common order. The grounds of appeal in the various appeals are as under:- “1. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law by allowing the benefit of section

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)

250) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As the issues in all these five appeals are common, they are being taken up for disposal by a common order. The grounds of appeal in the various appeals are as under:- “1. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law by allowing the benefit of section

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)

250) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As the issues in all these five appeals are common, they are being taken up for disposal by a common order. The grounds of appeal in the various appeals are as under:- “1. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in law by allowing the benefit of section

AMAN INFRAPROPERTIES P. LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

250 of the Act, the reference of order details, against which appeal has been filed by the assessee, are given as dated 12.12.2017 passed under section 143(3) of the Act by the ACIT-1, Lucknow, whereas while disposing of the appeal, he has dealt with altogether a difference issue decided by the Assessing Officer, CPC-TDS, vide order dated

AMAN INFRAPROPERTIES P. LTD,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT RANGE-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

250 of the Act, the reference of order details, against which appeal has been filed by the assessee, are given as dated 12.12.2017 passed under section 143(3) of the Act by the ACIT-1, Lucknow, whereas while disposing of the appeal, he has dealt with altogether a difference issue decided by the Assessing Officer, CPC-TDS, vide order dated

PROVL. DIV. PWD HAMIRPUR.,HAMIRPUR vs. THE ADDL. CIT-TDS, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

4. That the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that impugned order dated 06/05/2019 having been passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act is bad in law and be quashed. 5. That the CIT(A) has failed to upholding the order passed u/s 154 of the Act, is contrary to the provisions

KAPIL DEO TRIPATHI,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4 LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.231/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Kapil Dev Tripathi C-2395, Raja Ji Puram, Lucknow, Up-226017 Pan: Abzpt7328G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Asstt Commissioner Of Income Tax Acit/Dcit-4, Lucknow . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Prashant Kr. Verma [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Against The Ex-Parte Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1053079897(1) Dt. 23/05/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac/ Cit(A)’ Hereinafter] The Assessee Came In Appeal U/S 253(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’ Hereinafter].

TDS’ hereinafter’] and later was on account of non-production of bills/invoices which remained unproved u/s 37(1) of the Act. The appellant was continued to be static in the matter of non-compliance in the first appellate proceedings as well, so is the result. ITAT-Lucknow Page 2 of 4 Kapil Dev Tripathi Vs ACIT ITA No.231/LKW/2023

BHAWANI DEVELOPERS,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW-NEW

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid\ndirections

TDS. In absence of any such details\nand considering the nature of payments shown by the assessee in the submission filed by it,\nthe provisions of section 194J are applicable in respect of these payments. Hence an amount\nof Rs.39,000/- are disallowed by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the act and\nadded to the total income

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 deducted under the various heads and after going through the replies and details filed by the assessee, the ld. AO concluded the proceedings under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without any change or addition in the matter. A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 3. Thereafter, the files were perused by the ld. CIT, (International Taxation

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Ors.’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)] we condoned the same and proceeded the case/s on merits. 3. Since the facts and solitary issue involved in this bunch of appeals are identical, on no objection from the Revenue, for the sake of brevity these appeals are heard together

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW., LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Ors.’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)] we condoned the same and proceeded the case/s on merits. 3. Since the facts and solitary issue involved in this bunch of appeals are identical, on no objection from the Revenue, for the sake of brevity these appeals are heard together

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Ors.’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)] we condoned the same and proceeded the case/s on merits. 3. Since the facts and solitary issue involved in this bunch of appeals are identical, on no objection from the Revenue, for the sake of brevity these appeals are heard together

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Ors.’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)] we condoned the same and proceeded the case/s on merits. 3. Since the facts and solitary issue involved in this bunch of appeals are identical, on no objection from the Revenue, for the sake of brevity these appeals are heard together

FINANCE & ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DIOS, LUCKNOW.,LUCKNOW. vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), LUCKNOW.

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Ors.’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)] we condoned the same and proceeded the case/s on merits. 3. Since the facts and solitary issue involved in this bunch of appeals are identical, on no objection from the Revenue, for the sake of brevity these appeals are heard together

BINDU KUMAR,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-1(1), LUCKNOW-NEW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 1.08.2023, in which the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the orders of the ITO-1(1), Lucknow passed on 18.12.2019 under section 143(3) of the Act. The grounds of appeal cum statement of facts are as under: - “1. The case has been selected for limited

M/S UNNAO DISTILLERIER AND BREWERIES LTD,KANPUR vs. DY.CIT (TDS),, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

TDS ought to be deducted on all heads of expenses as such as repairs and maintenance, vehicle running, advertisement and bottling charges received, overlooking that none of the expenses incurred are contract based or have been incurred beyond a specified limit, the amount paid is bill wise, the order passed is erroneous the liability of Rs.15,30,556/- created being

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\ndismissing the appeal of the assessee against the orders passed under section 206C\n(6A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The grounds of appeal are as under:-\n“1. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned\norder passed by the Ld. CIT (A), sustaining the order