KUMAR TALKIES,BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BAREILLY-NEW, BAREILLY, UTTAR PRADESH

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrakumar Talkies V. Income Tax Officer-1(1) Punjabi Market, Hospital Road, Fashion Point, 56, Civil Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Lines Near Prasad Cinema, Bareily-243001. Pan:Aaafk0045M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

50C(2) of the Act and without considering other relevant material affecting the fair market value of the property. 8. BECAUSE without prejudice to the grounds hereinfore, the Id. "CIT(A)" ought to have directed the "Assessing Officer" to re-compute the total assessed income of the "appellant" by setting-off the brought forward business losses of previous assessment years

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

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

1) for the assessment year-2012-13. The Learned CIT (A) has wrongly considered the partial response as full response of the Appellant/legal heir, at the time of framing of order under section 250 of Income Tax Act 1961. 8. That the Learned assessing officer has wrongly and illegally calculated the long term capital gain under section 50C of Income

PRASHANT,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(3), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshraprashant, V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3) 2-B, Wazidpur, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010. Aaykar Bhawan, 16/69, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Admpk9965F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 12 2024 O R D E R

1. That the Id.AO has erred in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without forming reason to believe as to escapement of income from tax u/s 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the Ld. AO has erred in completing reassessment without issuance and service of notice under section 148 of the Income

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

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

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

1)(c) of the Act was served upon him. Considering the fact that there was no representation before the Ld. CIT(A) and that the order has been passed ex parte, the reasons stated for the delay are found to be beyond the control of the assessee. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal

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

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

50C of the Act : 84,23,000/- Less: Indexed cost of acquisition 32,50,000/632X939 : 48,28,710/- Long Term Capital Gains : 35,94,290/- 3. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.39,76,350/- after making addition of Rs.35,94,290/- under the head “Long

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

delay in filing of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is admitted for hearing, on merits. (B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the assessee’s side: 15 17 19 21 (B.1) Further, a consolidated synopsis, common for all the appeals

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

delay in filing of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is admitted for hearing, on merits. (B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the assessee’s side: 15 17 19 21 (B.1) Further, a consolidated synopsis, common for all the appeals

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

delay in filing of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is admitted for hearing, on merits. (B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the assessee’s side: 15 17 19 21 (B.1) Further, a consolidated synopsis, common for all the appeals

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

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

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)

1. Because the Assessing order passed by the Assessing Officer is contrary to law of facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Because the Assessing Officer has erred in making and CIT(A) in confirming addition of Rs.16,47,000/- under the head Long Term Capital Gains after invoking provision of section 50C without ascertaining the actual market value

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

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

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

1. That the A.O./ Commissioner (Appeal) erred in law as well as on facts in assessing the capital gains u/s 69 A instead of Section 45 and wrongly applied the provisions of Section 115BBE thereby making an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- per para 10 of the assessment order which is contrary to law, illegal and arbitrary considering

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

delay in \nfiling of this Cross Objection is condoned; and the Cross Objection is \nadmitted for hearing, on merits. \n(B) In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate \nTribunal, (“ITAT” for short), following paper book were filed from the \nassessee’s side:\n14 \nINDEX\n**********\nSIR, RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY\n(PAN-ATIPP6520B)\n1. Copy of ITR along