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 orders in support of its claim and accordingly requested that the proceedings initiated under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for A.Ys. 2014-15 and 2015-16 may be dropped. 4. However, the ld. CIT, (International Taxation) was not in agreement with the submissions of the assessee. She held that as per Explanation

SHIMLA PROPERTIES,LUCKNOW vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 Shimla Properties V. The Pcit 30C, Datiya House Lucknow Khursheed Bagh Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ablfs9732M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16 08 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 09 2022 O R D E R

Section 263 (1) & (2) read: “263. (1) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing

ALLIANCE NIRMAAN LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

price or all\nsignificant risks and rewards of ownership have been transferred to the buyer and the seller\nretains no effective control of the goods transferred to a degree usually associated with\nownership; and\n(ii) no significant uncertainty exists regarding the amount of the consideration that will be\nderived from the sale of goods. Further In a transaction involving

M/S STANDARD FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT LTD,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 132(4) of the Act on 3rd August, 2015 and letter dated 31st July, 2015 issued by Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal. The case was centralised as per the orders passed under section 127 of the Act and a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 6th September, 2016, which was duly served. Upon receipt of notice

SACHIN VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 132(4) of the Act on 3rd August, 2015 and letter dated 31st July, 2015 issued by Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal. The case was centralised as per the orders passed under section 127 of the Act and a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 6th September, 2016, which was duly served. Upon receipt of notice

KAMAL KANT VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 132(4) of the Act on 3rd August, 2015 and letter dated 31st July, 2015 issued by Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal. The case was centralised as per the orders passed under section 127 of the Act and a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 6th September, 2016, which was duly served. Upon receipt of notice

SHRI CHETAN SHARMA,KANPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, both appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

transfer certificate, copy of bank statement, copy of D-mat account, which are placed on record and are verificable.” Inspite of the above stated categorical office note recorded by Assessing Officer, the Ld. PCIT took the view that the Assessing Officer failed to make inquiries about the assessees claim for Long Term Capital Gain, and passed the aforesaid orders under

PRECIOUS BJUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, , BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.66/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Precious Buildtech Pvt Ltd V. Pcit Harmony Apartment, Adiacent Income Tax Department, To Bedi International School, Bareilly-243001. Dental College Road, Pilibhit Bypass Road, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aagcp1255R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Mazhar Akram, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 09 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

1) of the Act calling upon the assessee on various issues including the issues which is the subject matter of the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. Further, AO did not make any addition and accepted the Income Tax Return without making any reference to the enquiry conducted by him. The Revenue has heavily relied on the Explanation

ISHWAR DWELLINGS PVT. LTD,KANPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2015-16

263 of the Act. 4.7 As regards the second observation of having not accepted agricultural income declared by the assessee in assessment year 2014-15, we find that non acceptance of agricultural income from agricultural land by the Revenue authorities cannot be a reason to classify the said land as not being used for agricultural purposes. The fact

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (FORMELY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),LUCKNOW vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

263 (ITAT Delhi)]. 5. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 14,01,930/- being the balance in 'infrastructure development fund account'. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount in the above statutory fund are specifically received by virtue of Government Order dt. 15.01.1998 and are meant

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(FORMERLY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),AYODHYA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

263 (ITAT Delhi)]. 5. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs 14,01,930/- being the balance in 'infrastructure development fund account'. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount in the above statutory fund are specifically received by virtue of Government Order dt. 15.01.1998 and are meant

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

263 (ITAT Delhi)].\n5. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs \n14,01,930/- being the balance in 'infrastructure development fund account'. Ld. CIT(A) \nfailed to appreciate that the amount in the above statutory fund are specifically received by \nvirtue of Government Order dt. 15.01.1998 and are meant

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

263 (ITAT Delhi)]. \n5. Because the Ld. CIT(A) erred, both in law and on facts, in sustaining the addition of Rs \n14,01,930/- being the balance in 'infrastructure development fund account'. Ld. CIT(A) \nfailed to appreciate that the amount in the above statutory fund are specifically received by \nvirtue of Government Order dt. 15.01.1998 and are meant

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

1. Identity, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of these compares in aspect of said unsecured loans. 2. Nature of business and modus operendi of the companies from whom assesses had received unsecured loans. DDIT (Inv). Unit-2, Kolkata submitted its report vide letter dated 17.04.2018 stating threin that summons u/s 131 were issued to the above mentioned company

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, 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

1. Identity, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of these compares in aspect of said unsecured loans. 2. Nature of business and modus operendi of the companies from whom assesses had received unsecured loans. DDIT (Inv). Unit-2, Kolkata submitted its report vide letter dated 17.04.2018 stating threin that summons u/s 131 were issued to the above mentioned company

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(3), KANPUR vs. SHRI RAJ KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

transferred to Abhipra Capital Ltd,. The sale consideration was received by demand draft. Therefore, the transaction in question cannot be said to be fake and is a genuine transaction. The Tribunal has not committee any error in upholding the order of CIT(Appeals) on this point, "The appeal fails and is dismissed. Order Date :- 12.12.2012" Hon'ble Supreme Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(4), KANPUR vs. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWAL, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

transferred to Abhipra Capital Ltd,. The sale consideration was received by demand draft. Therefore, the transaction in question cannot be said to be fake and is a genuine transaction. The Tribunal has not committee any error in upholding the order of CIT(Appeals) on this point, "The appeal fails and is dismissed. Order Date :- 12.12.2012" Hon'ble Supreme Court