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

90(2A) of the Act, redundant and nugatory. 9) The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter, all or any grounds of Appeal.” 2. The facts of the case are that the ld. Assessing Officer passed orders under section 201(1)/201(1A) in respect of the assessee for both assessment years on 29.09.2021. He noted that the assessee

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

section 40A(2) of the Act, amounting to Rs.8,78,412/- out of payments made to Prag Precision Tools. In the impugned appellate order, the learned CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid addition. The learned CIT(A) has dealt with this issue in paragraphs 9(1) to 9(vii) of his order. His conclusion is reproduced below for ease of reference

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

90 or the Central Government has adopted any agreement under sub-section (1) of section 90A and the assessee does not have a permanent establishment I.T.A. No.393/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2016-17 21 in India in accordance with the provisions of such agreement; or (ii) the assessee is a resident of a country with which India does not have an agreement

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(4), RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Bareilly V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2472C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Amritsar V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs4654E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Kanpur(I) V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2468Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Guwahati V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2462E (Appellant) (Respondent)

price thereof was to be determined mutually. Further, the valuation of the WIP is to be at the instance of the second party, who has been given the right to do so, if required. The valuation is not mandatory and, hence, the conclusion of the CIT(A) is not only irrelevant, but also incorrect. It is interesting to note that

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

priced anything \nabove such limit, though the cost incurred for construction of same be far more than \nthe limit set by State Government. It would be pertinent to mention here that when \na scheme is launched, out of total area covered under said scheme between 40% to \n50% of such area is saleable area and out of the saleable area

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

priced anything \nabove such limit, though the cost incurred for construction of same be far more than \nthe limit set by State Government. It would be pertinent to mention here that when \na scheme is launched, out of total area covered under said scheme between 40% to \n50% of such area is saleable area and out of the saleable area

M/S RAHMAN INDUSTRIES LTD,KANPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for

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

transfer pricing adjustments on the basis of the report of the TPO, the addition is contrary to the provisions of law, misconceived, unjustified, unwarranted and be deleted. 6. Because the authorities below have failed to demonstrate as to how the computation provided in the audit report in 3CEB was erroneous, not in accordance with the accounting norms or was erroneous

M/S RAHMAN INDUSTRIES LTD,KANPUR vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for

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

transfer pricing adjustments on the basis of the report of the TPO, the addition is contrary to the provisions of law, misconceived, unjustified, unwarranted and be deleted. 6. Because the authorities below have failed to demonstrate as to how the computation provided in the audit report in 3CEB was erroneous, not in accordance with the accounting norms or was erroneous

NETPLAST PVT.LTD.,KANPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(3)(1), KANPUR

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

90,420/-. In the\naforesaid assessment order, an addition of Rs.34,518/- was made by making\ndisallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Further an addition of Rs.84,00,000/- was\nmade u/s 69C of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office\nof the learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 18/03/2024,\nthe assessee's appeal

VIKAS JAIN,KANPUR vs. ACIT-CC 2(1)(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Vikas Jain, Vs. The Acit, H-2/1, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur- Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur 208001 208006 Pan: Abqpj8049R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 17.05.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 27.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because There Being No Reason To Believe, Far From There Being Any Material To Form Reasons To Believe, The Proceedings Initiated Right From Issue Of Notice U/S. 148 & The Re-Assessment Framed Thereof Are All Without Jurisdiction Bad In Law, The Order Passed Be Quashed. 02. Because The So-Called Reasons Having Been Recorded Applying Explanation 2(A) To Section 147, Of The Act Which Not Being Applicable, The Very Reason To Believe Being Contrary To The Mandate Of The Section, The Proceedings- Initiated U/S 148, The Reassessment Framed Are All Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, Be Quashed. 03. Because The Approval Given By The Competent Authority U/S 151, Being Mechanical In Nature Without Verification Of Facts, The Notice Issued U/S 148 & The Reassessment Framed Thereafter Be Quashed.

transfer of an asset. Accordingly, applying the provisions of section 50C, he held reasons to believe that assessee’s income chargeable to tax of Rs. 1,10,72,650/- had escaped assessment during the assessment year 2015-16 by virtue of the proviso of Explanation 2(a) of section 147. 3. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

transfer and registration of property in their names and since they also had to pay premium towards price appreciation of the property, betterment charges for value addition to the property, interest on differed or delayed payments, thus what was emerging was that the activity of the assessee was purely that of a commercial organization. Therefore, the ld. AO held that

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

transfer and registration of property in their names and since they also had to pay premium towards price appreciation of the property, betterment charges for value addition to the property, interest on differed or delayed payments, thus what was emerging was that the activity of the assessee was purely that of a commercial organization. Therefore, the ld. AO held that

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

transfer and registration of property in their names and since they also had to pay premium towards price appreciation of the property, betterment charges for value addition to the property, interest on differed or delayed payments, thus what was emerging was that the activity of the assessee was purely that of a commercial organization. Therefore, the ld. AO held that

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

transfer and registration of property in their names and since they also had to pay premium towards price appreciation of the property, betterment charges for value addition to the property, interest on differed or delayed payments, thus what was emerging was that the activity of the assessee was purely that of a commercial organization. Therefore, the ld. AO held that

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

transfer and registration of property in their names and since they also had to pay premium towards price appreciation of the property, betterment charges for value addition to the property, interest on differed or delayed payments, thus what was emerging was that the activity of the assessee was purely that of a commercial organization. Therefore, the ld. AO held that

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

transfer and registration of property in their names and since they also had to pay premium towards price appreciation of the property, betterment charges for value addition to the property, interest on differed or delayed payments, thus what was emerging was that the activity of the assessee was purely that of a commercial organization. Therefore, the ld. AO held that

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

price paid is not decisive to say whether the land is agricultural or not. I.T.A. No.44/Lkw/2021 Assessment Year:2015-16 14 6.7 We may refer to a judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CWT vs. E. Udayakumar (2006) 284 ITR 511 (Mad) where the Hon'ble Madras High Court has referred to the decision

HARVINDER KUMAR SAHNI,LAKHIMPUR-KHERI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Harvinder Kumar Sahni V. The Dy. Cit Punjabi Colony Sitapur Gola Gokaran Nath Lakhimpur Kheri Tan/Pan:Autps9076M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Ajay Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16 03 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 03 2020 O R D E R

price was of Rs.90 lakhs, out of which, sale of agricultural land was of Rs.71,25,056/-, sale of building was of Rs.18,74,944/- and sale of machinery was of Rs.5 lakhs. Reducing the WDV of the building and the machinery, amounting to Rs.8,59,467/-, the assessee stated net short term capital gain of Rs.15

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

price is supported by official quotation issued by Magadh Stock Exchange, therefore, there cannot be any reason to doubt the genuineness of the sale transaction of the shares. It is settled position of law by the decisions reported in 26ITR 776(SC), 37 ITR 288(SC), 63 ITR 449(SC) and 1 SOT 90 (Mum) (supra) that suspicion