SHIMLA PROPERTIES,LUCKNOW vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 Shimla Properties V. The Pcit 30C, Datiya House Lucknow Khursheed Bagh Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ablfs9732M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16 08 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 09 2022 O R D E R

House Property, short term capital gain and Income from other sources, got accepted by the Department; that subsequently, re-assessment proceedings were initiated to tax the statedly escaped income of Rs.6,64,000/- derived from sale of shares of M/s NYSSA Corporation Ltd. and the reassessment proceedings were completed vide order dated 27.12.2019, making an addition

SUSHIL TULI,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(5), SHAHJAHANPUR

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

house property. 7. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition, holding as under: ITA No.553/LKW/2016 Page 4 of 6 “The appellant is claiming that it is not owner of the properties and therefore the income

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

house properties. In the assessment order of above said period the Ld. AO has not brought any single instance of incriminating material on the basis of which addition could have been made w.r.t. business income

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

house properties. In the assessment order of above said period the Ld. AO has not brought any single instance of incriminating material on the basis of which addition could have been made w.r.t. business income

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

house properties. In the assessment order of above said period the Ld. AO has not brought any single instance of incriminating material on the basis of which addition could have been made w.r.t. business income

RAVI SHANKAR DUBEY,LUCKNOW vs. D CIY RANGE-3, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

addition under the head "income from house property" in respect of same property on which interest was paid by the appellant

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

houses is not. The submissions discussing judicial precedents on this issue and on the applicability /inapplicability of the decisions of jurisdictional High Court are annexed. REVENUE’S SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL 1. Revenue filed additional grounds of appeal for all these years on 05.02.2020 raising the failure of the CIT(A) to consider provisions contained

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

houses is not. The submissions discussing judicial precedents on this issue and on the applicability /inapplicability of the decisions of jurisdictional High Court are annexed. REVENUE’S SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL 1. Revenue filed additional grounds of appeal for all these years on 05.02.2020 raising the failure of the CIT(A) to consider provisions contained

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

houses is not. The submissions discussing judicial precedents on this issue and on the applicability /inapplicability of the decisions of jurisdictional High Court are annexed. REVENUE’S SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL 1. Revenue filed additional grounds of appeal for all these years on 05.02.2020 raising the failure of the CIT(A) to consider provisions contained

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

houses is not. The submissions discussing judicial precedents on this issue and on the applicability /inapplicability of the decisions of jurisdictional High Court are annexed. REVENUE’S SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL 1. Revenue filed additional grounds of appeal for all these years on 05.02.2020 raising the failure of the CIT(A) to consider provisions contained

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

houses is not. The submissions discussing judicial precedents on this issue and on the applicability /inapplicability of the decisions of jurisdictional High Court are annexed. REVENUE’S SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL 1. Revenue filed additional grounds of appeal for all these years on 05.02.2020 raising the failure of the CIT(A) to consider provisions contained

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

houses is not. The submissions discussing judicial precedents on this issue and on the applicability /inapplicability of the decisions of jurisdictional High Court are annexed. REVENUE’S SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL 1. Revenue filed additional grounds of appeal for all these years on 05.02.2020 raising the failure of the CIT(A) to consider provisions contained

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

houses is not. The submissions discussing judicial precedents on this issue and on the applicability /inapplicability of the decisions of jurisdictional High Court are annexed. REVENUE’S SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL 1. Revenue filed additional grounds of appeal for all these years on 05.02.2020 raising the failure of the CIT(A) to consider provisions contained

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result, all the grounds taken in the appeals and ground 1 of additional grounds of the Revenue stand dismissed and additional ground

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

houses is not. The submissions discussing judicial precedents on this issue and on the applicability /inapplicability of the decisions of jurisdictional High Court are annexed. REVENUE’S SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL 1. Revenue filed additional grounds of appeal for all these years on 05.02.2020 raising the failure of the CIT(A) to consider provisions contained

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Property Stock" as represented by Houses constructed by the "Appellant" (excluding the cost of land) as charged to the Income and Expenditure Account was liable to be allowed as deduction even in Cash System of Accounting and the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified either on facts or in law in confirming the addition

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Property Stock" as represented by Houses constructed by the "Appellant" (excluding the cost of land) as charged to the Income and Expenditure Account was liable to be allowed as deduction even in Cash System of Accounting and the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified either on facts or in law in confirming the addition

M/S U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Property Stock" as represented by Houses constructed by the "Appellant" (excluding the cost of land) as charged to the Income and Expenditure Account was liable to be allowed as deduction even in Cash System of Accounting and the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was not justified either on facts or in law in confirming the addition

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

addition of Rs.37,00,000/- on account of investment in new house property situated at \nLucknow without appreciating the fact that the assessee had ownership of more than \ntwo house property, other than the new investment in house property situated at \nLucknow at the time of transfer of property that violates the provisions of section 54F \nof Income

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

Income-tax Officer v. Ram Nath Aggarwal [2004] 2 SOT 471 (ITAT ASR. Bench) (SMC) that the valuation of an asset is not an exact science. Mathematical calculation 'is not possible. The valuation of the immovable property is also estimated on the basis of the facts and circumstances. Therefore, it could not be said that whatever the Valuation Officer