NISHAT ARA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

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

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

section 260- A of the Act, 1961. 5. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.” I.T.A. No.61 to 65/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2012-13 31 4.10 We further find that the SLP filed by the Revenue has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.08.2021. 4.11 In the present cases, on the one hand

SHAHEEN RABIA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -II, KANPUR

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

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

section 260- A of the Act, 1961. 5. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.” I.T.A. No.61 to 65/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2012-13 31 4.10 We further find that the SLP filed by the Revenue has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.08.2021. 4.11 In the present cases, on the one hand

MARGHOOB ALAM,KANPUR vs. DCUT, CC-II, KANPUR, KANPUR

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

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

section 260- A of the Act, 1961. 5. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.” I.T.A. No.61 to 65/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2012-13 31 4.10 We further find that the SLP filed by the Revenue has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.08.2021. 4.11 In the present cases, on the one hand

ZAIN ALAM,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- II, KANPUR

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

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

section 260- A of the Act, 1961. 5. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.” I.T.A. No.61 to 65/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2012-13 31 4.10 We further find that the SLP filed by the Revenue has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.08.2021. 4.11 In the present cases, on the one hand

NAUSHEEN FARAH,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

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

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

section 260- A of the Act, 1961. 5. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.” I.T.A. No.61 to 65/Lkw/2021 Assessment year:2012-13 31 4.10 We further find that the SLP filed by the Revenue has also been dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.08.2021. 4.11 In the present cases, on the one hand

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

section of the IT Act. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Udit Narain Agarwal vide judgment and order dated 12.12.2012 in ITA 560 of 2009 wherein their lordships after enumerating various material and information as had been placed on record by the assesses with regard to one such penny stock transaction, has further observed

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

gain arising from the transfer of said agricultural land falls under section 10(37)(i) of the Act. v. Item (a) of section 2(14)(iii) deals specifically that agricultural land, which falls under municipal limits, that’s why those are capital

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

gain arising from the transfer of said agricultural land falls under section 10(37)(i) of the Act. v. Item (a) of section 2(14)(iii) deals specifically that agricultural land, which falls under municipal limits, that’s why those are capital

MOHAMMED JUNED SIDDIQUI,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT/ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Mohammed Juned Siddiqui, Vs. Dcit/Acit-1, C-84/2, Sarvodaya Nagar, Indira Lucknow New Nagar, Lucknow-226016 Pan: Aqnps6188G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Samrat Chandra Ca & Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 20.11.2024, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao Dated 30.12.2018, Passed Under Section 143(3). The Grounds Of Appeal In Both The Appeals Are As Under: - “1. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed Being Illegal. 2. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition Of Rs.11,38,70,742/- Under The Head Capital Gain, Which Was Exempt U/S 10(37) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Not Allowing The Benefit Of Provision Of Rfctlarr Act, 2013. 3. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of Rs. 11,38,70,742/- Only On The Basis Of Roving Enquiries Without Providing An Opportunity Of Being Heard. 4. Because Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of 6,98,27,344/- Under The Head Capital Gains Being Amount

capital gains on land was exempt from tax under section 10(37) of the Act and also as per section

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

section 2(14)(iii)(b)(1) of the Act, the land sold is not capital asset not chargeable to tax under the head capita gain, yet he completely ignored to verify and examine the nature and character of the land which was purchased by the assessee on 17.02.2011 with the motive of developing the land. 4.6 Regarding first observation

MR. PAWAN KUMAR SINGH,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2009-10 Mr Pawan Kumar Singh V. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1) 848, Tilak Colony, Subhash Nagar, Bareilly (Up). Bareilly. Pan:Ccrps4435G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 04 2025 O R D E R

37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer" shall have the same meaning

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

capital gain against the short-term\nloss, the order passed by the Assessing Officer could not be deemed to be\nerroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.\nSection 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 -Revision Of orders prejudicial to\ninterest of revenue - Assessment year 2011-12 - Where Assessing Officer\nafter examining issue on points

AYYUB JAFRI,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

Section 54F claimed in respect of long term capital gain and having fulfilled all prescribed conditions and investment made in construction of residential house amounting to Rs.12033877.00/- in the present case during March 2015 F.Y. 2015-16 as well as till 31st July 2016 which is within prescribed period of sometime before and three years from the date of sale

SAKET MURARKA,SITAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Saket Murarka V. The Income Tax Officer Prop. M/S Murarka Brothers Sitapur Jail Road Sitapur Tan/Pan:Aaypm4558P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18 03 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 03 2025 O R D E R

section 50C(1) of the Act. The AO, accordingly, calculated the Long Term Capital Gain in the case of the assessee as under: Sale Price (Circle Value) :Rs.63,59,700/- Purchase cost (27.08.2004) – Rs.14,00,000/- Stamp - Rs.02,03,300/- Total - Rs.16,03,300/- Cost index – (16,03,300X785/480) Indexed Cost :Rs.26,22,063/- L.T.C.G. :Rs.37,37

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

capital receipt. Accordingly, section 115BBE is not applicable on the assessee. On the basis of the above submissions, it is very clear that the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred both on the facts as well as in law in treating the corpus donation as income u/s 2(24) and making the addition u/s 68 . The order passed is not tenable

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

capital receipt. Accordingly, section 115BBE is not applicable on the assessee. On the basis of the above submissions, it is very clear that the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred both on the facts as well as in law in treating the corpus donation as income u/s 2(24) and making the addition u/s 68 . The order passed is not tenable

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

37,52,840 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 17-18 30/12/2019 47,33,840 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 18-19 31/12/2019 5,11,17,229 31/01/2022 Partly allowed (A.1) The grounds raised by the assessees in these appeals are as under: I.T.A. No.41/Lkw/2022 “1. That the notice issued and assessment completed under section 153A of the act is invalid and unlawful

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

37,52,840 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 17-18 30/12/2019 47,33,840 31/01/2022 Partly allowed -Do- 18-19 31/12/2019 5,11,17,229 31/01/2022 Partly allowed (A.1) The grounds raised by the assessees in these appeals are as under: I.T.A. No.41/Lkw/2022 “1. That the notice issued and assessment completed under section 153A of the act is invalid and unlawful