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

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

TDS) passed an order dated 20/11/2019 and rejected the application of the assessee moved I.T.A. No.96/Lkw/2023 Assessment Year:2012-13 3 u/s 154 stating the reason that rectification application of the assessee does not fall within the ambit of section 154 of the IT Act. The assessee went in appeal before learned CIT(A) against the order passed

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

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

M/S ALLIANCE BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Alliance Builders & Asst.Commissioner Of V. Contractors Ltd Income Tax, Central Circle-2 C/O 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Allen Ganj, Kanpur. Pan:Aaeca8217A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28 11 2024 O R D E R

6) of this sub-section available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment or reassessment, as the case may be. Is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall he extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly.’ 7. Further clause (iii) of Explanation to 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

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

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

AMAR DIWAKAR,KANPUR NAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Amar Diwakar V. Dcit J0512, Avas Vikas Circle 4 Keshavpuram, Kalyanpur Kanpur Kanpur Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aiypd7324G (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Pradeep Seth, Advocate 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 20.12.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per Information Gathered By The Department From Network Management System (Nms) Portal, The Assessee Had Earned Salary Income Of Rs.17,50,162/- From Fiit Jee Ltd & Had Made Cash Deposit Of Rs.11,50,000/- In His Saving Bank Account During The Year Under Consideration. The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Initiated Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act To The Assessee. In Response To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act

TDS of Rs.1,56,022/- has been deducted thereon, in support of which the assessee filed copy of Form 26AS also before the AO. It was further submitted before the AO that out of the cash deposits of Rs.11,50,000/- in Royal Bank of Scotland, New Delhi, Rs.9,00,000/- was received in cash from his relatives and balance

SKYHIGH INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-6(1), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaand\Nshri, Nikhil Choudhary\Nita No. 242/Lkw/2025\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nskyhigh Infrastructures Pvt\Nltd\Nv.\Ncp-2 Ii Floor, Gomti Plaza,\Nvikas Khand, Gomti Nagar,\Nlucknow-226010.\Nincome Tax Officer-6(1)\Npratyaksh Kar Bhawan,\Nlucknow-226001.\Npan:Aatcs1687B\N(Appellant)\N(Respondent)\Nappellant By:\Nshri P. K. Kapoor, Ca\Nrespondent By:\Nshri Amit Kumar, Dr\Ndate Of Hearing:\N10 06 2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N31 07 2025\Norder\Nper Nikhil Choudhary.:\Nthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of\Nthe Learned Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi\Nu/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, For Short) Dated\N17.01.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of\Nthe Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Assessing\Nofficer U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 28.12.2019. The Grounds Of\Nappeal Are As Under: -\N“1.

250(6) of the\n\"Act\".\n1.2 BECAUSE the Id. \"CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without affording due\nand effective opportunity of being heard to the “appellant” and consequently the\nimpugned order passed by the ld. “CIT(A)” deserves to be set aside and matter\nrestored to his file for passing the order a-fresh after affording reasonable

LEKHESHWAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,AYODHYA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2016-17 Lekheshwar Educational Trust V. Income Tax Officer Lekheshwar Complex Exemption Ward Naka By Pass Lucknow Faizabad (Ayodhya) Pan:Aaatl9836B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 09 2024 O R D E R

6 the surplus income of Rs.23,89,867/- is taxable. The assessee has also shown an expense under the head “TDS Penalty” of Rs.16,970/- and claimed it as Revenue Expenditure, which was also disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.24,06,840/- and issued computation sheet and demand

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., 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