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

delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 5. The facts, in brief, are that the assessment order dated 16.08.2016 was passed by the Assessing Officer (“AO”, for short) u/s 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of AIR information

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

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for decision on merits. (B) In this case, assessment order dated 28.03.2022 was passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 read with section 144B of I.T. Act whereby the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.18,58,966/-. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer

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

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

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

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

50C of Income Tax Act 1961 is wrong, illegal and bad in law. 12. That the Learned Assessing officer and Learned CIT (A)/NFAC has not followed the procedure lay down in section 159 of the Income Tax Act 1961 before passing the order of CIT (A) under section 250 of the IT Act 1961 dated

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)

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.” 5. None was present on behalf of the assessee when the appeal was called out for hearing. However, looking into the facts of the case, I proceed to adjudicate the appeal

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

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

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 and ought to has been assessed u/s 45 of the Act thus the observation and conclusion drawn in Para 12 of the assessment order and arbitrary, illegal and based

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

condonation of delay, substantial justice is paramount consideration and pivotal and that the authorities ought to follow a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non-pedantic approach. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the term 'sufficient cause' referred to in section

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