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

2 of 4 4. That the Ld. AO has erred in reopening assessment under section 147 of the Act on the basis of deeming provision under section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the Ild.AO has erred in making addition of Rs.4,60,000/- u/s 147 rws 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. That

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

NISHA FAZAL,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO-4(3), KANPUR-01

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay in filing of this\nappeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing.\n4.\nThe facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual\nand retired from the post of Chief Manager from LIC. The Assessing Officer\npassed assessment order under section 144 read with section 147 of the\nI.T. Act on 05/12/2019 assessing

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

2. The present appeal is barred by limitation by 512 days. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit. The Ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the application for condonation of delay and relied upon the contents of the accompanying affidavit. It was submitted that the assessee

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

2. The action of the Learned CIT (A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, bad in law and uncalled for and is liable to be set aside as the same has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice as the appellant was not given any adequate opportunity of hearing before passing of the said order. 3. That the assessment

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)

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 of the property though agitated in return and providing proper opportunity to the appellant. The addition is liable to be deleted

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

section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) and the AO have grossly erred in overlooking that a specific objection qua the applicability of the stamp value u/s 50C of the Act was taken in Written Submission dated 20.06.2016 filed before

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

2. That the part of sale consideration of Rs. 381676/- per Para 11 has again been wrongly termed as cash deposit deposited not during the demonetization which is illegal leading to applicability of the provisions of Section 115BBE which is not applicable in the prevailing circumstances, accordingly the amount of Rs. 381676/- being part of sales consideration cannot be assessed

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

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