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

property was converted into freehold through registered deed on 24/10/2017. During the assessment proceeding of AY 2014-15, AO has referred the valuation of said property u/s 50C/142A in response to which Valuation Officer, Allahabad has estimated the FMV of lease property as on 04/10/2013 at Rs. 43,46,000/- against actual consideration of Rs. 31,45,000/- vide valuation

M/S K.M.GASES PVT.LTD.(NOW K.M.VYAPAR PVT.LTD),KANPUR vs. DY. CIT-VI, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S K.M. Gases Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit-Vi (Now Known As K.M. Vyapar Pvt. Ltd.) Kanpur 11, Moti Bhawan, 52/1, Collectorgant Kanpur (U.P) Tan/Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

House Property in the subsequent years, in as much as the same has not been disputed by the department also and hence the change of head of income is a clear violation of the rule of consistency as laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred

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 of the same

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 of the same

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 of the same

SHRI KINGSHUK GHOSHAL,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-6(5), LUCKNOW

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Kinghshuk Ghoshal V. The Ito 6(5) E-402, Halwasiya Utsav Enclave Lucknow Opposite Hal, Faizabad Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Affpg3258L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 26.12.2017, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Lucknow-3 (Ld. Cit(A)) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.11.2012, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,05,233/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noticed That The Assessee Was Earning Interest Income From Saving Bank Deposits & Fdrs & That The Assessee Had Claimed Exemption Of Rs.71,54,619/- Under Section 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). During The

housing and in a way leads to assess the intention of the assessee and if the intention of the assessee is to purchase a new property and that is fulfilled by the facts on record, then the enabling provision of keeping the amount in a particular scheme whether that is fulfilled or not should not destroy the ultimate bona-fide

SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

House Property and other source income. The business activities\ncarried out by the assessee remained identical as to those in several\npreceding year and were operated and controlled from the following\nplaces;\n(a) 74/02, Collectorganj. (Office)\n(b) J-9, Site-3, Panki Industrial Area, Kanpur (Godown)\nFollowing grounds have been raised:-\n1. That the assessment famed u/s.143

MR.BHUPENDRA KUMAR TIWARI,GONDA vs. ITO-6(1), LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Ys. 2021-22 Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tiwari, Vs. Ito, P.S. Bhitaree-1, Wazirganj, Ward 6(1) Distt. Gonda Lucknow Pan Agmpt 0366J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2024 O R D E R

house property by the assessee against which deduction wrongly Rs.92,447/- disallowed for Rs.92,447/- . 3. BECAUSE the Ld. Assessing Officer did not consider the fact that a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-has been elaimed under 3 chapter VI-A by the assessee against which deduction wrongly disallowed for Rs. 1,50,000/-. 4. BECAUSE the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

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

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

exemption u/s 54 of the Act which was denied by the AO. The appellant has not produced any evidence as to why his claim may be entertained. In view of the above, the LTCG as calculated by the AO for property 2 stands confirmed. In summary, the addition of Rs.1,55,71,193/-, being Long-term capital gain

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

Housing Act, 1955 (U.P. Act No. XXIII of 1955). h) To regulate building operations. i) To improve and clear slums. j) To provide roads, electricity, sanitation, water supply and other civic amenities and essential services in areas developed by it. k) To acquire movable and immovable properties for any of the purposes before mentioned. l) To raise loans from market

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

Housing Act, 1955 (U.P. Act No. XXIII of 1955). h) To regulate building operations. i) To improve and clear slums. j) To provide roads, electricity, sanitation, water supply and other civic amenities and essential services in areas developed by it. k) To acquire movable and immovable properties for any of the purposes before mentioned. l) To raise loans from market

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

Housing Act, 1955 (U.P. Act No. XXIII of 1955). h) To regulate building operations. i) To improve and clear slums. j) To provide roads, electricity, sanitation, water supply and other civic amenities and essential services in areas developed by it. k) To acquire movable and immovable properties for any of the purposes before mentioned. l) To raise loans from market

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

Housing Act, 1955 (U.P. Act No. XXIII of 1955). h) To regulate building operations. i) To improve and clear slums. j) To provide roads, electricity, sanitation, water supply and other civic amenities and essential services in areas developed by it. k) To acquire movable and immovable properties for any of the purposes before mentioned. l) To raise loans from market

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

Housing Act, 1955 (U.P. Act No. XXIII of 1955). h) To regulate building operations. i) To improve and clear slums. j) To provide roads, electricity, sanitation, water supply and other civic amenities and essential services in areas developed by it. k) To acquire movable and immovable properties for any of the purposes before mentioned. l) To raise loans from market

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

Housing Act, 1955 (U.P. Act No. XXIII of 1955). h) To regulate building operations. i) To improve and clear slums. j) To provide roads, electricity, sanitation, water supply and other civic amenities and essential services in areas developed by it. k) To acquire movable and immovable properties for any of the purposes before mentioned. l) To raise loans from market

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

Housing Act, 1955 (U.P. Act No. XXIII of 1955). h) To regulate building operations. i) To improve and clear slums. j) To provide roads, electricity, sanitation, water supply and other civic amenities and essential services in areas developed by it. k) To acquire movable and immovable properties for any of the purposes before mentioned. l) To raise loans from market

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

Housing Act, 1955 (U.P. Act No. XXIII of 1955). h) To regulate building operations. i) To improve and clear slums. j) To provide roads, electricity, sanitation, water supply and other civic amenities and essential services in areas developed by it. k) To acquire movable and immovable properties for any of the purposes before mentioned. l) To raise loans from market

SMT. SITA KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

exempt.” Page 3 of 6 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee had filed her return of income for the year under consideration on 30/01/2016, declaring total income at Rs.14,92,910/-. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30/06/2017 at a total income of Rs.1