BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

27 results for “capital gains”+ Section 50cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai266Delhi195Jaipur111Hyderabad84Chennai78Ahmedabad73Kolkata58Indore57Surat51Pune43Nagpur39Bangalore38Visakhapatnam29Lucknow27Agra26Chandigarh22Rajkot21Dehradun19Raipur16Patna15Jodhpur11Jabalpur7Cochin6Amritsar6Panaji3Allahabad3Cuttack2Varanasi2Ranchi1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 14830Section 14729Section 50C23Addition to Income22Section 143(2)13Section 153A12Section 56(2)(vii)11Capital Gains9Long Term Capital Gains

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

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

ITA 434/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

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.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 143(1)Section 147

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

9
Section 271(1)(c)7
Section 2507
Penalty7
Section 148
Section 151
Section 156
Section 48
Section 50C

capital gain instead of business income resulting into reduced attributable partners remuneration. The ld. CIT(A) considered all these issues raised by the assessee. On the issue of the wrong invocation of Explanation 2(a) of section 147, the ld. CIT(A) held that it was a mistake covered under section 292B of the Income Tax Act. He relied upon

NIRMAL SINGH,AYODHYA vs. ITO WARD-1,, FAIZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria & Sa. No. 07/Lkw/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita. No.83/Lkw/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Nirmal Singh The Income Tax Officer, V. 15/2/16, Janki Ghat, Ayodhya- Ward-1, 224123, Faizabad (Up). Cinema Road, Faizabad- New-224001. Pan:Bdsps4165C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri. Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 24 09 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10 10 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

50C(2). (vii) The sale deed executed on 26.06.2013. (viii) Section 56(2)(vii)(b) Proviso is applicable and as per same the date of first payment i.e. 10.03.2011 would construe to be the date of agreement/transaction. The agreement to purchase is to be taken as on 10.03.2011 and is prior to insertion of section 56(2)(vii)(b), which

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

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

ITA 729/LKW/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

Capital Gains by applying provisions of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with total disregard to the facts

VIJAY PAL SINGH,HARDOI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC

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

ITA 56/LKW/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147ASection 50CSection 50C(2)Section 55ASection 56(2)(vii)

section 50C, however, permits the assessee to dispute such valuation adopted by the State Stamp Valuation Authority and in such a case, it is open for the Assessing Officer to refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer. Present is not a case of this nature, as is clear from the assessment order in which the Assessing

RAJEEV GUPTA L/H RAMESH CHANDRA GUPTA,KANPUR vs. ITO-3(3), KANPUR

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

ITA 369/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Rajeev Gupta V. The Income Tax Officer 3(3) Legal Heir Of Late Ramesh Kanpur Chandra Gupta 133/118, Transport Nagar Kanpur Nagar Tan/Pan:Aiypg8690G (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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the ITA No.369/LKW/2024 Page 2 of 7 Act’), the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority for the purpose of payment of Stamp Duty is deemed to be the full value of consideration received as a result of such transfer and that, therefore, the capital gain

HARCHARAN SINGH,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(5), KANPUR

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

ITA 201/LKW/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.201/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 Harcharan Singh V. Ito-2(5) 118/208, Kaushalpuri, Kanpur- Kanpur 208012. Pan:Anxps2189N अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: None प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Deepak Yadav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10 06 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 06 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Yadav, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

section 50C were not applicable to the same (at the time of sale); 5. the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in computing/upholding the computation of Long Term Capital Gain

SAKET MURARKA,SITAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SITAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2/LKW/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C(1)

Capital Gain as per the provisions of section 50C(1) of the Act. The AO, accordingly, calculated the Long Term

HARI SINGH CHAUHAN,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(5), AAYAKAR BHAWAN

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 344/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Hari Singh Chouhan V. The Income Tax Officer 3(5) 1, Naramau Kanpur Kanpur Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Askpc3749A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Srhi Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Srhi Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 55A

Capital Gains (LTCGs), which addition is contrary to facts bad in law be deleted. 4. Because the CIT(A) was not justified in not referring the matter to the Valuation Officer inspite of the assessee's specific request, failure to do so has made the order bad in law the same be quashed. ITA No.344/LKW/2023 Page

SHRI CHETAN SHARMA,KANPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 344/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Hari Singh Chouhan V. The Income Tax Officer 3(5) 1, Naramau Kanpur Kanpur Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Askpc3749A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Srhi Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Srhi Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 55A

Capital Gains (LTCGs), which addition is contrary to facts bad in law be deleted. 4. Because the CIT(A) was not justified in not referring the matter to the Valuation Officer inspite of the assessee's specific request, failure to do so has made the order bad in law the same be quashed. ITA No.344/LKW/2023 Page

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR vs. COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD., KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 779/LKW/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-5, Kanpur 84/105, Kailash Motors Building, G.T. Road, Afim Kothi, Kanpur-208003 Pan: Aaccc4267E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (A)- 2, Kanpur Dated 25.09.2017, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y. 2006-07 On 23.12.2008. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 5,32,366/- U/S 14A Without Taken Into Consideration That The Expenditure Incurred In Relation To Exempt Income. 02. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 99,56,258/-Without Appreciating That The Provisions Of Sec. 50C Have Been Invoked By The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Stamp Valuation Of The Property. The Assessee Has Not Claimed Before The Assessing Office To Make The Reference To The Valuation Officer U/S 55A Of It Act, 1961. 3 That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 3,20,90,164/- On Account Of Loss Claimed On Sale Of Shares Without Appreciating That The Transaction As Claimed Were Sham & Was Incorporated Only To Evade The Capital Gain Earned On The Sale Of Properties. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Ignoring The Facts Noted By The Assessing Officer Regarding The Transaction Of Sale Of Shares.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(X)Section 41(1)Section 50CSection 55A

capital gain under the normal provisions of the Act and at Rs. 6,03,02,570/- under section 115JB of the Act, 1961. As the tax worked out in respect of income determined under the normal provisions of the Act was less than the tax calculated on the book profit computed under section 115JB of the Act, he levied

SANDHYA BHADAURIA,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD5(3), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 778/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrasandhya Bhadauria V. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(3) B-19, Sector-E (New) Chandralok, Aliganj, Lucknow- Aaykar Bhawan, 5 Ashok 226001. Marg, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Ahvpb8675N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Govind Krishna, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Govind Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(2)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54

Capital Gain, by invoking provisions of section SOC of the Income Tax Act, despite the fact that the Appellant made strong objection to her action of considering the Circle rate as full value of consideration without making reference to DVO pursuant to the provisions of section 50C

MR. ADITYA KUMAR,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-1(1), LUCKNOW

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

ITA 22/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Y. 2017-18 Mr. Aditya Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), 1, Anora, Amausi, Lucknow Lucknow-226008 Pan Bfapok 7298L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Siddharth Kohli, Advocate Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2024 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 45Section 50CSection 69Section 69A

50C and at the same time resorting to application of provisions of Section 115BBE thus confusing the entire transaction which in facts was simply a clear cut case of 'Capital Gains

VIMAL KUMAR BANKA,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2)(1), KANPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Vimal Kumar Banka V. The Ito 5/P/25, Dabauli Ward 1(2)(1) Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Afzb1801J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 24.11.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That As Per The Assessing Officer (Ao), The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Sold An Immovable Property, Jointly Held With Mrs Kanchan Talwar, During The Year Under Consideration For A Consideration Of Rs.10,00,000/- & The Value Of The Same As Per The Stamp Valuation Authority Was Rs.23,15,000/-. The Assessing Officer (Ao), Therefore, Reopened The Case Of The Assessee Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151

Capital Gains as computed in the case of other co-owners having been accepted on the same figure as that declared by the assessee, the initiation of reassessment over loading the same, is contrary to provisions of law, the reassessment framed be quashed. 7. Because the Assessing Officer has failed to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer

FIROJ AHMAD ,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-1(4), LUCKNOW

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

ITA 264/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Firoz Ahmad Income Tax Officer-1(4) V. B-1174, Indira Nagar, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226016. Lucknow-226001. Pan:Adypa2072K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 14 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application filed)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 48Section 50CSection 54

Section 50C of the Act. Page 2 of 6 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts and circumstances Of the case in confirming the disallowance of the entire cost of improvement (indexed) in relation to Property No 2 amounting to Rs. 5,31,375/- claimed

YOGENDRA KUMAR SINGH,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(2), BAREILLY

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

ITA 1004/LKW/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.1004/Lkw/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10 Yogendra Kumar Singh, V. Income Tax Officer-2(2) 848 Tilak Colony, Subhash Bareilly-New Nagar, Bareilly-243001. 243001. Pan:Ccrps4590L अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03 03 2026 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 27 03 2026 Pronouncement: O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

section 50C of the Act and adopted the stamp duty valuation for the purpose of computation of capital gains. The total

ARUN KUMAR MAURYA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

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

ITA 415/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

50C of the Act. Thus, the addition so sustained is wholly untenable in law and deserves to be deleted. An order of assessment without mandatorily referring the case to DVO is bad in law. 5. Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in sustaining addition under Section

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), BAREILLY

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

ITA 502/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year:2014-15 Rakesh Kumar Gupta V. The Income Tax Officer House No.51, Kaharan Ward 2(3) Nawabganj, Bareilly (U.P) Bareilly Tan/Pan:Aaupg6815 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 12 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 245(3)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

section 131 of the Act issued to the wife of the assessee, the AO computed the Long Term Capital Gain of the assessee for the year under consideration as under: Full value of consideration u/s. 50C

NEERAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA,BAHRAICH vs. ITO-1, BAHRAICH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year 2018-19 Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, Vs. The Income Tax Officer-1, Kanchhar, Bahraich Bisheswarganj, Bahraich-271821 Pan –Aiwpa 3483D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 50C

Capital Gains after invoking provision of section 50C without ascertaining the actual market value of the property though agitated in return

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

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

ITA 624/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Ms Shweta Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prajesh Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 153Section 50C

section 50C of Income Tax Act. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in passing appellate order which is contrary to the facts and law. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any grounds of appeal or raise any new ground appeal during the pendency of appeal

GOPAL JI MISHRA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-6(5), LUCKNOW

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

ITA 349/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Gopal Ji Mishra V. The Income Tax Officer 6(5) K-1218, Ashiana Lucknow - New Kanpur Road, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Akjpm8317M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. 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

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 69A

Capital Gain' was liable to be deleted. 6.3 BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances, the Id. Assessing Officer erred in not referring the matter of valuation to the DVO, as per provisions of sub-section (2) of section 50C