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

8. Sub section (3) of Section 11 provides that if such income which is accumulated is not utilized for the purpose for which it was so accumulated during the period given in the statement, then such income shall be deemed to be the income of such person of the previous year in which it is ceases to be so accumulated

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

8. Sub section (3) of Section 11 provides that if such income which is accumulated is not utilized for the purpose for which it was so accumulated during the period given in the statement, then such income shall be deemed to be the income of such person of the previous year in which it is ceases to be so accumulated

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

8. Sub section (3) of Section 11 provides that if such income which is accumulated is not utilized for the purpose for which it was so accumulated during the period given in the statement, then such income shall be deemed to be the income of such person of the previous year in which it is ceases to be so accumulated

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

8. Sub section (3) of Section 11 provides that if such income which is accumulated is not utilized for the purpose for which it was so accumulated during the period given in the statement, then such income shall be deemed to be the income of such person of the previous year in which it is ceases to be so accumulated

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

8. Sub section (3) of Section 11 provides that if such income which is accumulated is not utilized for the purpose for which it was so accumulated during the period given in the statement, then such income shall be deemed to be the income of such person of the previous year in which it is ceases to be so accumulated

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

8. Sub section (3) of Section 11 provides that if such income which is accumulated is not utilized for the purpose for which it was so accumulated during the period given in the statement, then such income shall be deemed to be the income of such person of the previous year in which it is ceases to be so accumulated

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

8. Sub section (3) of Section 11 provides that if such income which is accumulated is not utilized for the purpose for which it was so accumulated during the period given in the statement, then such income shall be deemed to be the income of such person of the previous year in which it is ceases to be so accumulated

VINAI SHUKLA,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW NEW, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.624/Lkw/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vinai Shukla V. Acit-1, Lucknow New 2/280, Vikas Khand Gomti Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226010. Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Asnps3558C अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Ms Shweta Mittal, Ca प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Prajesh Srivastava, Sr. Dr सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21 08 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 12 09 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

section (8) available to the Assessing Officer for making an order of assessment, reassessment or re-computation, as the case may be, is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and the aforesaid period of limitation shall be deemed to be extended accordingly: Provided further that where the period available to the Transfer Pricing

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

8. The ld. AR, thereafter drew our attention to page 199 of his paper book which contained a summary submission, that for the A.Ys. 2006-07, 2007-08, 208- 09, 2011-12 and 2012-13, the case of the assessee company had been assessed under section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Transfer Pricing

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

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

transfer plots, building and other properties of the Board or of the State Government placed under the control and management of the Board. f) To organize and run workshops and stores for the manufacture and stock piling of building materials. g) On such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the Board and the State Government, to declare

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

transfer plots, building and other properties of the Board or of the State Government placed under the control and management of the Board. f) To organize and run workshops and stores for the manufacture and stock piling of building materials. g) On such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the Board and the State Government, to declare

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

transfer plots, building and other properties of the Board or of the State Government placed under the control and management of the Board. f) To organize and run workshops and stores for the manufacture and stock piling of building materials. g) On such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the Board and the State Government, to declare

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

8) inserted by the Financial Act of 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2009. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), erred in allowing exemption under section 11 of the Act, disregarding the provisions contained section 11(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not taking into account the provisions contained in section

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

8) inserted by the Financial Act of 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2009. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), erred in allowing exemption under section 11 of the Act, disregarding the provisions contained section 11(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not taking into account the provisions contained in section

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

8) inserted by the Financial Act of 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2009. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), erred in allowing exemption under section 11 of the Act, disregarding the provisions contained section 11(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not taking into account the provisions contained in section

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

8) inserted by the Financial Act of 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2009. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), erred in allowing exemption under section 11 of the Act, disregarding the provisions contained section 11(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not taking into account the provisions contained in section

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

8) inserted by the Financial Act of 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2009. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), erred in allowing exemption under section 11 of the Act, disregarding the provisions contained section 11(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not taking into account the provisions contained in section