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

2)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) in both years rejected the plea of the assessee for accumulation of income.\n\n7. The ld. CIT(A) thereafter, proceeded to decide the issue of the infrastructure fund. Perusing the G.O. dated 15.12.1998, to which the infrastructure fund owed its origin, he observed that as per the said

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

2)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) in both years rejected the plea\nof the assessee for accumulation of income.\n\n7.\nThe ld. CIT(A) thereafter, proceeded to decide the issue of the infrastructure\nfund. Perusing the G.O. dated 15.12.1998, to which the infrastructure fund owed its\norigin, he observed that as per the said

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

2)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) in both years rejected the plea\nof the assessee for accumulation of income.\n7. The ld. CIT(A) thereafter, proceeded to decide the issue of the infrastructure\nfund. Perusing the G.O. dated 15.12.1998, to which the infrastructure fund owed its\norigin, he observed that as per the said G.O., part

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

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

2)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) in both years rejected the plea\nof the assessee for accumulation of income.\n\n7. The ld. CIT(A) thereafter, proceeded to decide the issue of the infrastructure\nfund. Perusing the G.O. dated 15.12.1998, to which the infrastructure fund owed its\norigin, he observed that as per the said

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

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

2)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) in both years rejected the plea\nof the assessee for accumulation of income.\n\n7.\nThe ld. CIT(A) thereafter, proceeded to decide the issue of the infrastructure\nfund. Perusing the G.O. dated 15.12.1998, to which the infrastructure fund owed its\norigin, he observed that as per the said

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

2)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) in both years rejected the plea\nof the assessee for accumulation of income.\n20\nITA Nos.532 & 533/LKW/2014\nITA Nos.534 & 535/LKW/2014\nITA Nos.21 & 22/LKW/2019\nU.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad\n7.\nThe ld. CIT(A) thereafter, proceeded to decide the issue of the infrastructure\nfund. Perusing the G.O. dated 15.12.1998, to which

GOLDEN COMTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KANPUR, KANPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2013-14 Golden Comtrade Private Limited, Vs. Acit-5, 58/43, Birhana Road, Kanpur Kanpur-208001 Pan: Aaccg 1622R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not be applied as the investment has been made in I.T.A. No.81/Lkw/2021 5 respect of Dividend income (generated from such investment) shown by the assessee company would remain exempt from taxation. The assessee vide reply dated submitted as under: “The reply of the assessee is not acceptable on the basis of the facts

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

90,54,400/- which have not\nbeen examined by the AO with regard to genuineness of the expenses\nclaimed nor whether the same were allowable as per provisions of the Act.\nThe Assessing officer has passed the assessment order on 15.12.2019 u/s\n143 of the Act without enquiries on the above issues and accepted\nsubmissions of the assessee

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) was unerring and in consonance with the settled principles of law. 3. BECAUSE, on the facts

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

2(14)(iii) deals specifically that agricultural land, which falls under municipal limits, that’s why those are capital assets and capital gains on transfer of such land is chargeable to tax. Said situations of capital gains fall under clause (a) of section 10(37) of the Act. vi. Appellant never claimed exemption from income tax for transfer of agricultural

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

2(14)(iii) deals specifically that agricultural land, which falls under municipal limits, that’s why those are capital assets and capital gains on transfer of such land is chargeable to tax. Said situations of capital gains fall under clause (a) of section 10(37) of the Act. vi. Appellant never claimed exemption from income tax for transfer of agricultural

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

90 days, and the FDs keep\nrolling over for different LCs. The assessee was, therefore, asked to submit specific\ndetails of Bank Guarantee with accrued interest on FD allocable to the eligible\nunits.\nIn response, the assessee made the following submissions:\nImpact on profit under section 801A by direct allocation of Interest Income\nfrom FDR kept as Margin Money

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

TDS\nprovisions.\n27\n2021-22\n4.1 / 2\n4.1 follows: The Auditor, in his audit\nreport dated 08.03.2022, in Form No. 3CB\nhas commented as\na. It is not possible to ascertain GP ratio\nin such type of business.\nb. As explained to us, entity has not\nmaintained quantity wise reconciliation of\nstock.\nc. Sundry debtor, creditors and loans &\nadvances

M/S. TIRUBALA INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-VI, KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2014-15 Tirubala International Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of C-7, Panki Industrial Area, Vs. Income Tax, Range-Vi, Kanpur Kanpur, U.P. Pan:Aaect2086J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Vikas Garg, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Dcit-6, Kanpur Passed On 19.12.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Ao, Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Making An Addition Of Rs. 29,164/- On Account Of Late Payment Towards Employees Contribution To Esi. 2. That The Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate That The Payment Of Rs.29,164 Towards Employee'S Contribution To Provident Fund Was Made Before The "Due Date" Of Filing Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 Therefore There Could Not Be Any Addition Of The Aforesaid Amount To The Returned Income. 3. That The Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate That The Due Date As Mentioned In 36(1) (Va) Is To Be Read In Conjunction With Section 43B(B)

TDS on that payment, in the light of the provisions of section 195 of the Act. Therefore, invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, expenditure of Rs.2,68,311/- was disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee company. Finally, on perusal of the profit and loss account and other details submitted

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

In the result, appeals vide I

90 days, and the FDs keep\nrolling over for different LCs. The assessee was, therefore, asked to submit specific\ndetails of Bank Guarantee with accrued interest on FD allocable to the eligible\nunits.\n\nIn response, the assessee made the following submissions:\n\nImpact on profit under section 801A by direct allocation of Interest Income\nfrom FDR kept as Margin

RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DY.CIT, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

90,318/- in the P & L account. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued by the Assessing Officer. The assessee in its reply, filed a revised computation of income in which it added back the various provisions debited in P&L account and made a disallowance u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. UTTAR PRADESH POLICE AND ARMED FORCES SAHAYATA SANSTHAN, LUCKNOW

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer V. Uttar Pradesh Police & Armed (Exemption) Forces Sahayata Sansthan Lucknow Room No.6, Naveen Bhawan U.P. Sachivalaya, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaatr4272K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Respondent By: Shri B. P. Yadav, Advocate O R D E R

2 of 11 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’). The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 30.10.2013, declaring total income at Nil. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer (AO) held that the assessee has not adjusted an amount of Rs.99

ACIT CIRCLE 3, LUCKNOW vs. RAJDHANI NAGAR SAHKARI BANK LTD, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 112 To 114/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2015-16 To 2017-18 Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Vs. Dcit Bank Ltd P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. 226001. Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan:Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) A.Y.2016-17 Acit Circle-3 Vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh Ltd Kar Bhawan, Lucknow Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan: Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Addl. Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Four Appeals Have Been Have Been Filed For The Assessment Years 2015 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18 By The Assessee & Revenue Ssessee & Revenue Against The Respective Orders Of The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024. While The Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, The Revenue 18, The Revenue

90,318/- in the P & L account. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued by the Assessing Officer. The assessee in its reply, filed a revised computation of income in which it added back the various provisions debited in P&L account and made a disallowance u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”, for short