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

b) and were deemed to arise and accrue in India as per section 5(2) r.w.s. 9(1)(vii) of the Act. Therefore, she held that the assessee was liable to deduct the tax at source on the commission paid as per the provisions of section 195 of the Act. 6. The ld. CIT, (International Taxation) rejected reliance upon

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

B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment 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

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

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

B.\nAccount and claimed as Business Loss. Further, the same is allowable as per CBDT\nCircular No. 35-D(XLVII-20)- [File No. 10 8/48/65-1T(A-O)] dated 24.11.1965. fraud\n3. The Ld. C. I. T. (A), NFAC, erred on facts and in law in upholding the rejection of\ndeduction u/s 36(1) (viia) and 36(1) (viii) as Provision

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is held to be partly allowed

b)\ndiscount on promissory notes and bills of exchange drawn or made in India, but\ndoes not include;\ni. Interest referred to in sub section (1B) of section 42 of the Reserved Bank of India\nAct, 1934 or (ii) discount on treasury bills. As per section 4(2) of the Interest Tax\nAct, the interest tax is to be charged

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)

7 of the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973 and Moradabad Development Authority had only carried out the developmental activities of planning and development of Moradabad city, as provided for in the objects mentioned therein. It was submitted that the Moradabad Development Authority was A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 ITA Nos.1071, 1072, 1073/Del/2020 A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 registered under 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)

7 of the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973 and Moradabad Development Authority had only carried out the developmental activities of planning and development of Moradabad city, as provided for in the objects mentioned therein. It was submitted that the Moradabad Development Authority was A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 ITA Nos.1071, 1072, 1073/Del/2020 A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 registered under 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)

7 of the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973 and Moradabad Development Authority had only carried out the developmental activities of planning and development of Moradabad city, as provided for in the objects mentioned therein. It was submitted that the Moradabad Development Authority was A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 ITA Nos.1071, 1072, 1073/Del/2020 A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 registered under 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)

7 of the U.P.U.P.D.A. 1973 and Moradabad Development Authority had only carried out the developmental activities of planning and development of Moradabad city, as provided for in the objects mentioned therein. It was submitted that the Moradabad Development Authority was A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 ITA Nos.1071, 1072, 1073/Del/2020 A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2016-17 registered under section

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

b) in view of the fact that after service of notice (in any manner), the appellant had duly participated in the proceedings, there remained no such infirmity either in the notice itself or in the matter of service thereof, which would go to vitiate the assessment itself. 3.3 BECAUSE various case laws as have been referred to and relied upon

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

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

7.\nThe contention on behalf of the Revenue before us is that the\nAssessing Officer was right in holding that the deduction under\nSection 80-IA of the Act should be restricted to 'business income'\nonly. Mr. Arijit Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of\nthe Revenue, submitted that Section 80AB of the Act contemplates\ndeductions in respect

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

In the result, appeals vide I

7.\nThe contention on behalf of the Revenue before us is that the\nAssessing Officer was right in holding that the deduction under\nSection 80-IA of the Act should be restricted to 'business income'\nonly. Mr. Arijit Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of\nthe Revenue, submitted that Section 80AB of the Act contemplates\ndeductions in respect

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 The Asstt. Commissioner V. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd Of Income Tax B-9, Vibhuti Khand Central Circle Ii Gomti Nagar Lucnow Lucknow Pan:Aadca5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.19/Lkw/2017 [In Ita No.66/Lkw/2017] Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-9, Vibhuti Khand Income Tax Gomti Nagar Central Circle Ii Lucknow Lucnow Pan:Aadca5639H (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments are pending in the statutory hierarchy of adjudication in terms of the provisions of the I.T Act. In all such situations, it cannot be treated that a return filed at any stage of such proceedings could be treated

M/S SINGHAL CONCAST PVT. LTD,LUCKNOW vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

section 206C(1). Having said so, we restore the issue to Assessing Officer with direction to grant relief to assessee under the provision of 206C(1) of Act, with regards to only sale of scrap arising out of manufacturing activity in course of ship breaking after providing due opportunity of hearing to assessee.” 7. The Hon'ble High Court

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

TDS and grant the benefit to the assessee as per law. On the issue of charging of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C, holding that the charging of interest was mandatory, he rejected the plea of the assessee but directed the ld. AO to allow the consequential relief that would arise as a result of the decisions made

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

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

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

7 the income of the appellant on the basis of statement of income as based on the audit report in form 10-B, as was applicable in its case, by virtue of its being registered under section 12A of the Income-tax Act. (a)That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts

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

7 the income of the appellant on the basis of statement of income as based on the audit report in form 10-B, as was applicable in its case, by virtue of its being registered under section 12A of the Income-tax Act. (a)That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts

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

7 the income of the appellant on the basis of statement of income as based on the audit report in form 10-B, as was applicable in its case, by virtue of its being registered under section 12A of the Income-tax Act. (a)That the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts