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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

5% concession on the total price of land/flats allotted to all its employees including senior employees. Thus, a benefit was being given to the employees and more particularly, the Manager and their relatives. Ld. Special Counsel pointed out that though the Adhiniyam, 1965 under which the respondent was created, did not give any such benefit to all the employees including

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

Accordingly all four additional grounds filed by the revenue in Appeal numbers 532 & 533 of 2014, stand dismissed

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

5% concession on the total price of land/flats allotted to all its employees including senior employees. Thus, a benefit was being given to the employees and more particularly, the Manager and their relatives. Ld. Special Counsel pointed out that though the Adhiniyam, 1965 under which the respondent was created, did not give any such benefit to all the employees including

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

5% concession on the total price of land/flats allotted to all its employees including senior employees. Thus, a benefit was being given to the employees and more particularly, the Manager and their relatives. Ld. Special Counsel pointed out that though the Adhiniyam, 1965 under which the respondent was created, did not give any such benefit to all the employees including

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

5% concession on the total price of land/flats allotted to all its employees including senior employees. Thus, a benefit was being given to the employees and more particularly, the Manager and their relatives. Ld. Special Counsel pointed out that though the Adhiniyam, 1965 under which the respondent was created, did not give any such benefit to all the employees including

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

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) in which the TPO had examined the payment to foreign wholly owned subsidiaries and accepted that the nature of the transactions with the foreign wholly owned subsidiaries was “Commission” and not fees for technical services. The ld. AR submitted that the income of the foreign subsidiary accrues and arose abroad. He referred to the decisions

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

5% concession on the total price of land/flats allotted to all its employees including senior employees. Thus, a benefit was being given to the employees and more particularly, the Manager and their relatives. Ld. Special Counsel pointed out that though the Adhiniyam, 1965 under which the respondent was created, did not give any such benefit to all the employees including

DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. PRAYAGRAJ POWER GENERATION COMPANY LTD.,, NOIDA

In the result, ground no. 1 of appeal is dismissed and ground no

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

17 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986) and ending with the assessment year during which the entire net worth of such company becomes equal to or exceeds the accumulated losses. Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, "net worth" shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (ga) of sub-section

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

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

d) and 13(3) of the Act. Revenue also submitted grounds on 19.03.2021 as an abundant caution again pointing out the non-consideration of Sections 11(2) and 11(3) and also the specific items of disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section

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

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

d) and 13(3) of the Act. Revenue also submitted grounds on 19.03.2021 as an abundant caution again pointing out the non-consideration of Sections 11(2) and 11(3) and also the specific items of disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section

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

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

d) and 13(3) of the Act. Revenue also submitted grounds on 19.03.2021 as an abundant caution again pointing out the non-consideration of Sections 11(2) and 11(3) and also the specific items of disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section

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

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

d) and 13(3) of the Act. Revenue also submitted grounds on 19.03.2021 as an abundant caution again pointing out the non-consideration of Sections 11(2) and 11(3) and also the specific items of disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section

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

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

d) and 13(3) of the Act. Revenue also submitted grounds on 19.03.2021 as an abundant caution again pointing out the non-consideration of Sections 11(2) and 11(3) and also the specific items of disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section

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

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

d) and 13(3) of the Act. Revenue also submitted grounds on 19.03.2021 as an abundant caution again pointing out the non-consideration of Sections 11(2) and 11(3) and also the specific items of disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section

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

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

d) and 13(3) of the Act. Revenue also submitted grounds on 19.03.2021 as an abundant caution again pointing out the non-consideration of Sections 11(2) and 11(3) and also the specific items of disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section

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

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

d) and 13(3) of the Act. Revenue also submitted grounds on 19.03.2021 as an abundant caution again pointing out the non-consideration of Sections 11(2) and 11(3) and also the specific items of disallowance relating to Infrastructure fund, Vambay Scheme Fund and Revolving fund. 2. These grounds primarily relate to the application of Section

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S PRAG INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of Revenue and Cross Objection of assessee, both are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Videshri Anadee Nath Misshra

D. R.) also supported the additions, claiming applicability of CUP (Comparable uncontrolled Price). The Learned Learned A. R. for the assessee placed reliance on CIT Vs Poonam Rani 5 Taxmann.com 76 (Del), CIT Vs. Mohd Umer 101 ITR 525 (Patna) for the contention that low profit is not by itself a valid criterion for not accepting profit shown in books

SHILPA KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Shilpa Khandelwal V. The Dy. Cit-2 330, Kalibari Bareilly Bareilly (U.P) Tan/Pan:Arypk5700A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 04 2025 O R D E R

5 of 17 b) the shares so held in demat account were sold during the year under consideration through demat account; c) actual sale price was supported by sales bills/contract notes issued by the brokers and the corresponding movement in demat account referred to above; d) the price at which consideration had been realised were in conformity with the price

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

d) of the Act. 8.5 As regards ground No. 4 of Cross Objections, Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had granted discount to its employees for allotment of plots and the employees do not fall under the definition of persons mentioned in section 13(3) of the Act. It was submitted that this aspect has already been