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)

VII of paragraph 9.1 recorded the fact of the U.P. Government order dated 17.12.1999 regarding the reservation of 2% for employees of development authorities in respect to the allotment of residential and commercial properties and the fact that the ld. AO had recorded his satisfaction that the employees of the development authorities also included persons specified in 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)

VII of paragraph 9.1 recorded the fact of the U.P. Government order dated 17.12.1999 regarding the reservation of 2% for employees of development authorities in respect to the allotment of residential and commercial properties and the fact that the ld. AO had recorded his satisfaction that the employees of the development authorities also included persons specified in 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)

VII of paragraph 9.1 recorded the fact of the U.P. Government order dated 17.12.1999 regarding the reservation of 2% for employees of development authorities in respect to the allotment of residential and commercial properties and the fact that the ld. AO had recorded his satisfaction that the employees of the development authorities also included persons specified in 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)

VII of paragraph 9.1 recorded the fact of the U.P. Government order dated 17.12.1999 regarding the reservation of 2% for employees of development authorities in respect to the allotment of residential and commercial properties and the fact that the ld. AO had recorded his satisfaction that the employees of the development authorities also included persons specified in section

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

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

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

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

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

56,57,616/-. (E.1) As regards the computation of book profit u/s 115JB of IT Act, it is useful to refer to provisions of law, which are reproduced below for the ease of reference: Special provision for payment of tax by certain companies. 115JB. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, where in the case

TINICH SAHKARI GANNA SAMITI LIMITED,BASTI vs. ITO, , BASTI

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

vii & viii of 'grounds of appeal' in form 36 (claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii)):- As already stated in above para no. 2.1, the appellant has, in the return filed for the year, claimed a deduction at Rs.3557576/- u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii), out of the gross total income of Rs.3557576/-, which is the total net profit from

TINICH SAHKARI GANNA SAMITI LIMITED,BASTII vs. ITO, BASTI

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

vii & viii of 'grounds of appeal' in form 36 (claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii)):- As already stated in above para no. 2.1, the appellant has, in the return filed for the year, claimed a deduction at Rs.3557576/- u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii), out of the gross total income of Rs.3557576/-, which is the total net profit from

ALLIANCE NIRMAAN LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) to section 36(1)(vii); payment towards\ncontribution to gratuity fund and deduction claimed u/s 43B, amount paid to RBI towards\npenalty for violation of KYC norms and deduction claimed towards provision for wage arrears.\nAccording to PCIT, AO had not conducted required enquiries to be conducted under respective\nprovisions of the Act, which rendered the assessment order erroneous

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

In the result, both the appeals in ITA Nos

transferred to Provident Fund Commissioners Lucknow.\n6. The addition made are highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and principle of\nnatural justice and without providing sufficient time and opportunity to have its say\non the reasons relied upon.”\nThe facts of the case are that the assessee filed a return of income on\n29.09.2012 declaring a total income