U.P SAMAJ KALYAN NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS U.P STATE CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.),LUCKNOW vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, LUCKNOW

2 to Section 263 of\nthe Act, as invoked by the Ld. PCIT, is neither relevant nor applicable to the\nfacts of the present case. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order\ndated 08.01.2016 passed under Section 263 of the Act and restore the\n14\noriginal assessment order dated 29.03.2014. As a logical corollary, the\nconsequential assessment order dated

HARSAHAIMAL SHIAMLAL JEWELLERS PVIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Harsahaimal Shiamlal Jewellers Shri Vimalendu Verma, Private Limited, 148, Civil Lines, Vs. Pcit (Central), Lucknow, U.P. Bareilly, U.P.-243001 Pan:Aacch3785L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Act, Passed By The Ld. Pcit, Central ,Lucknow On 17.02.2022, Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer, Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act On 29.07.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred, Are As Under:-

section 263 and As such the order is bad in law and the same is liable to be cancelled. Grounds No. 13 That the Appellant craves leave to amend alters, add or forego any of the above grounds. 2. The facts of the case are, that the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. The reason

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

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(1)/201(1a) passed by the ITO (TDS

M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

TDS : Rs.1,699/- (iv) Addition under section 14A of the Act : Rs.36,310/- ITA No.701 & 702/LKW/2017 Page 10 of 17 8. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 24/10/2013 issued under section 263 of the Act, as reproduced hereinabove, shows that there is nothing contained therein with regard to the above additions or disallowances, but for the issue

M/S MODEL TANNERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

TDS : Rs.1,699/- (iv) Addition under section 14A of the Act : Rs.36,310/- ITA No.701 & 702/LKW/2017 Page 10 of 17 8. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 24/10/2013 issued under section 263 of the Act, as reproduced hereinabove, shows that there is nothing contained therein with regard to the above additions or disallowances, but for the issue

M/S MODEL EXIM,KANPUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriam/S. Model Exim Pcit (Central) V. 624-C, Defence Colony, 7/81-B, Tilak Nagar, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010. Kanpur. Pan:Aadfm6163H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Smt Namita S. Pandey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 29 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 11 2024 O R D E R

TDS u/s 195 of the IT. Act. In his reply the assessee has stated the disallowance of the commission under section 9(1)(vii) as FTS is not applicable to the facts of the case as per reason given in the reply. In support of his claim he has relied upon the following case laws in his favour

ETAH WINE TRADERS,KASGANJ vs. PCIT, BAREIILY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaetah Wine Traders V. Pcit, Bareilly C/O Kunwar Devendra Singh Aaykar Bhawan, Central Yadav, Laxmiganj, Kasganj, Revenue Building, Kamla Uttar Pradesh-207123. Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, Bareilly. Pan:Aaaae1483E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vivek Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 10 2024 O R D E R

2), the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129 and any Page 10 of 12 period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded.” 12. For invoking the provisions of section 263, both the conditions that

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. A CIT (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2012-13 National Highway Authority V. Addl. Cit (Tds) Of India 7/199, Radiance Town, 53, Basant Vihar, Naubasta, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur- Kanpur-208021. 208002. Pan:Aaatn1936H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 06 10 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 10 2025 O R D E R

TDS) and as upheld by the CIT(NFAC), overlooking and ignoring the petition for rectification u/s 154 of the act, being totally in disregard to the provision of the act, being violative to the principles of natural justice, totally unwarranted be quashed. 6. Because there being neither failure to the deduct whole or any part of the tax, the discrepancy

FUTURE PHARMA PVT.LTD,KANPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, KANPUR

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

263, it is not appreciable on the part of the PCIT to state that no audit report in the prescribed Form 3CD was filed which report was filed alongwith the return on 28.10.2018 which inter-alia contains all the relevant information vis-a-vis commission and salary paid alongwith details of applicability' of section 40A(2)(b) and TDS

PAWAN JAISWAL,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1(3), KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Pawan Jaiswal V. The Income Tax Officer 1(3) 29/43, Ghumni Bazar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aexpj4999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

2 of 6 on the ground that the deposits of Rs.4,88,000/- appearing in the name of Pawan Jaiswal HUF and also the closing balance of Rs.4,68,172/- appearing in the name of Tata Aldesa (JV) was unexplained and, therefore, he directed the AO to reframe the assessment. In the set aside proceedings, the Assessing Officer treated

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

2. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the assessee is a nationalized bank and it had reimbursed the LTC to its employees. The Revenue has raised the demand against the assessee by I.T.A. No.76, 22, 304 & 305/Lkw/2017 3 holding that the assessee had not deducted tax at source for the visits made by the employees

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

2. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the assessee is a nationalized bank and it had reimbursed the LTC to its employees. The Revenue has raised the demand against the assessee by I.T.A. No.76, 22, 304 & 305/Lkw/2017 3 holding that the assessee had not deducted tax at source for the visits made by the employees

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

2. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the assessee is a nationalized bank and it had reimbursed the LTC to its employees. The Revenue has raised the demand against the assessee by I.T.A. No.76, 22, 304 & 305/Lkw/2017 3 holding that the assessee had not deducted tax at source for the visits made by the employees

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

2. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the assessee is a nationalized bank and it had reimbursed the LTC to its employees. The Revenue has raised the demand against the assessee by I.T.A. No.76, 22, 304 & 305/Lkw/2017 3 holding that the assessee had not deducted tax at source for the visits made by the employees

TIMECITY REAL ESTATES(INDIA) LIMTED,LUCKNOW vs. PCIT-1, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2015-2016

TDS and the Wages I.T.A. No.67/Lkw/2021 Assessment Year:2015-16 2 Expenses/ Development Expenses / Lease Rent etc." as stated in the body of Order, hence the order passed u/s 263 on this issue is invalid. 2.1 That Ld. PCIT-1, failed to appreciate that during assessment proceeding, in compliance to notice u/s 142(1) dated 10.08.2017, the assessee submitted detailed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

TDS can not held to be non disclosure of the full particulars. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the notice under Section 147 of the Act to the petitioner stands vitiated in non compliance or fulfilment of the second condition as laid down in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act.” Shri Anil Kumar

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

TDS can not held to be non disclosure of the full particulars. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the notice under Section 147 of the Act to the petitioner stands vitiated in non compliance or fulfilment of the second condition as laid down in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act.” Shri Anil Kumar

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

263 of 2011 Date: 21st September, 2011 • Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (supra) 159 ITR 78 • Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jagdish Prasad Tewari reported in 220 Taxman 141 (Allahabad) ITA. No.139/LKW/2022 Page 14 of 158 • Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case