RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

4 relating to the addition of Rs.48,28,730/-,\nwhich had been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on account of employees contribution to\nprovident fund under section 36(1)(va), it was submitted that the actual figure of\nemployees contribution that was debited in the P&L account was only Rs.28,61,534/-\nand therefore, disallowance to the extent

MR.SHITIJ DHAWAN,KANPUR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2019-20 Mr. Shitij Dhawan V. The Assessing Officer 122/235, Fazalganj Special Range Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Acqpd3380G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 17 05 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 05 2022 O R D E R

TDS; that due to switchover of the Income Tax Website from TCS to Infosys, many glitches in the e-portal of the Department have occurred, for which extension of time has also been granted by the CBDT from time to time; and that therefore, there being no deliberate intention on the part of the assessee, but the delay in filing

KWALITY RESTAURANT,KANPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 Kwality Restaurant V. The Cit(A) 16/97, The Mall Delhi Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aaafk8712F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Amit Nigam, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18 10 2022 O R D E R This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.9.2021 Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is A Delay Of 115 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay, Which Is Also Supported By An Affidavit. 3. I Have Gone Through The Application For Condonation Of Delay As Well As The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee & Heard The Contention Of The Ld. D.R. On The Issue Of Condonation Of Delay. The Ld. D.R. Has Objected To The Condonatiion Of Delay & Submitted That The Assessee Is Shifting The Blame Of Delay On Its Counsel. 4. Having Considered The Reasons Explained By The Assessee In The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Find That The Assessee Has Explained The Cause Of Delay That Due To An Oversight Of The Counsel Of The Assessee, Necessary Steps For Filing

TDS in respect of expenses under the head ‘cloth, uniform and washing’. The ld. D.R. has submitted that as per the tax audit report, these expenses are covered under section 194C of the I.T. Act, but the assessee has not deducted tax at source and consequently, the same is liable to be disalled under section

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

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

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

section 144(2) of the Act,\nAssessing Officer is duty bound to record his/her dissatisfaction on correctness\nof claim of assessee before invoking the provision of section 144. As it is\nevident from language of section 144 as well as of rule 8D, recording of the\ndissatisfaction of Assessing officer as regard to correctness of claim of\nexpenditure made

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

In the result, appeals vide I

section 14A read with Rule 8D was made\nsolely on the basis of investment by Assessee Company in SPVs without\nverifying objects of investment and understanding of relevant provision of law.\nIt is also submitted that section 14A carries heading 'Expenditure\nincurred in relation to income not includible in total income'\n\nAs per Section 14A:- 'For the purpose

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

1) of Section 142 or Section 148 of the Act; or 3. To disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment of the relevant year. In this way, the authorities have to be satisfied that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment inter-alia for the reason of non disclosure of true and full material facts

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

1) of Section 142 or Section 148 of the Act; or 3. To disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment of the relevant year. In this way, the authorities have to be satisfied that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment inter-alia for the reason of non disclosure of true and full material facts

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)

4 of 2010 and 31 of 2010, where the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court had ruled in favour of similarly placed Development Authorities and held them to be charitable entities not covered under the provisions of section 2(15). The assessee also invited the attention to the order of the ld. ITAT A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 ITA Nos.1071

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)

4 of 2010 and 31 of 2010, where the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court had ruled in favour of similarly placed Development Authorities and held them to be charitable entities not covered under the provisions of section 2(15). The assessee also invited the attention to the order of the ld. ITAT A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 ITA Nos.1071

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)

4 of 2010 and 31 of 2010, where the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court had ruled in favour of similarly placed Development Authorities and held them to be charitable entities not covered under the provisions of section 2(15). The assessee also invited the attention to the order of the ld. ITAT A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 ITA Nos.1071

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)

4 of 2010 and 31 of 2010, where the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court had ruled in favour of similarly placed Development Authorities and held them to be charitable entities not covered under the provisions of section 2(15). The assessee also invited the attention to the order of the ld. ITAT A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 ITA Nos.1071

INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUCKNOW vs. RAJEEV KUMAR KAPOOR, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

TDS, not being penal in nature, could not be disallowed on account of the provisions of section Explanation 1 of sub section 1 of section 37. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal. 4

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

4 ITD 642.\nb. Karnal Improvement Trust vs. ACIT, 16 taxman.com 63 (ITAT-Del).\nc. CIT vs. M.CT Muthaiah Family Trust, 245 ITR 400 (Madras).\nd. Sir Sobha Singh Public Charitable Trust vs. ADIT (Exemption) 79 ITD 1 (Del).\nthe ld. CIT(A) held that in the case of the assessee, the purpose of accumulation of setting apart the income

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

4 ITD 642.\nb. Karnal Improvement Trust vs. ACIT, 16 taxman.com 63 (ITAT-Del).\nc. CIT vs. M.CT Muthaiah Family Trust, 245 ITR 400 (Madras).\nd. Sir Sobha Singh Public Charitable Trust vs. ADIT (Exemption) 79 ITD 1 (Del).\nthe ld. CIT(A) held that in the case of the assessee, the purpose of\naccumulation of setting apart the income

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

4 ITD 642.\nb. Karnal Improvement Trust vs. ACIT, 16 taxman.com 63 (ITAT-Del).\nc. CIT vs. M.CT Muthaiah Family Trust, 245 ITR 400 (Madras).\nd. Sir Sobha Singh Public Charitable Trust vs. ADIT (Exemption) 79 ITD 1 (Del).\nthe ld. CIT(A) held that in the case of the assessee, the purpose of\naccumulation of setting apart the income

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in denying exemption under section 11read with section 12, 12A and 13 on the grounds that the activities carried on by the appellant were profit making activities not falling under charitable purposes as envisage under section 2(15) of the Income- tax Act. 5. That

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in denying exemption under section 11read with section 12, 12A and 13 on the grounds that the activities carried on by the appellant were profit making activities not falling under charitable purposes as envisage under section 2(15) of the Income- tax Act. 5. That

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

4. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in denying exemption under section 11read with section 12, 12A and 13 on the grounds that the activities carried on by the appellant were profit making activities not falling under charitable purposes as envisage under section 2(15) of the Income- tax Act. 5. That