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)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of 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)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

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)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

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

55,118/- which was 47.29% of its total\nreceipts. He observed that for claiming exemption under section 11, the assessee\nwas obliged to file a Form 10 as per the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act along\nwith the return of income, which the assessee had not done. However, during the\ncourse of proceedings, on 21.12.2009, the assessee

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

55,118/- which was 47.29% of its total\nreceipts. He observed that for claiming exemption under section 11, the assessee\nwas obliged to file a Form 10 as per the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act along\nwith the return of income, which the assessee had not done. However, during the\ncourse of proceedings, on 21.12.2009, the assessee

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

55,118/- which was 47.29% of its total\nreceipts. He observed that for claiming exemption under section 11, the assessee\nwas obliged to file a Form 10 as per the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act along\nwith the return of income, which the assessee had not done. However, during the\ncourse of proceedings, on 21.12.2009, the assessee

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

55,118/- which was 47.29% of its total\nreceipts. He observed that for claiming exemption under section 11, the assessee\nwas obliged to file a Form 10 as per the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act along\nwith the return of income, which the assessee had not done. However, during the\ncourse of proceedings, on 21.12.2009, the assessee

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

55,118/- which was 47.29% of its total\nreceipts. He observed that for claiming exemption under section 11, the assessee\nwas obliged to file a Form 10 as per the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act along\nwith the return of income, which the assessee had not done. However, during the\ncourse of proceedings, on 21.12.2009, the assessee

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

transferred the amount to the balance-sheet, which was against normal accounting principles. Since, he had already denied the assessee’s claim for exemption under section 11, the ld. AO decided to treat the grant of Rs.8,68,50,000/-, as the income of the assessee, and it was accordingly added back to the income of the assessee. Finally

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

In the result all six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

transferred the amount to the balance-sheet, which was against \nnormal accounting principles. Since, he had already denied the assessee’s claim for exemption \nunder section 11, the ld. AO decided to treat the grant of Rs.8,68,50,000/-, as the income of the \nassessee, and it was accordingly added back to the income of the assessee. Finally

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

transferred the amount to the balance-sheet, which was against \nnormal accounting principles. Since, he had already denied the assessee’s claim for exemption \nunder section 11, the ld. AO decided to treat the grant of Rs.8,68,50,000/-, as the income of the \nassessee, and it was accordingly added back to the income of the assessee. Finally

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

transferred the amount to the balance-sheet, which was against \nnormal accounting principles. Since, he had already denied the assessee’s claim for exemption \nunder section 11, the ld. AO decided to treat the grant of Rs.8,68,50,000/-, as the income of the \nassessee, and it was accordingly added back to the income of the assessee. Finally

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 2(a) and 2

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

2. In this regard reliance has been placed on the statement of Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal recorded on oath under 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

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

2. In this regard reliance has been placed on the statement of Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal recorded on oath under 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

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

2. In this regard reliance has been placed on the statement of Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal recorded on oath under 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

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

Transfer Pricing provisions have no application in the present case for comparison of profits of Dehradun and Lucknow units of the assessee. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the assessee company had specified domestic transactions with its Associate Enterprises the aggregate of which exceeded Rs.20 cr. Further, we have already noted earlier that there was reasonable explanation

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

transferred to the Provident Fund Commissioner on 29.11.2016 after registering the EPF with the Provident Fund Commissioner on 05.08.2015. Accordingly, it was prayed that deduction may kindly be allowed. With regard to the denial of deduction on account of leave encashment actually paid, it was submitted that the action of the Ld. CIT(A) was incorrect because the authorities below