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

house property situated at \nLucknow at the time of transfer of property that violates the provisions of section 54F \nof Income Tax Act, 1961. \n\n6. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in \ndeleting the addition of Rs.1,00,000/- in respect of gift received from father Shri \nSurya Narayan Pandey

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MORADABAD

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MORADABAD vs. DY. CIT(EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) and the various case laws on the subject, which again were outside the purview of jurisdiction under section 154 and his own powers under section 250. 23. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage, that the Hon’ble Lucknow Bench of the ITAT has dealt with this issue (of violation of section

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (FORMELY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),LUCKNOW vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result all six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

10% discount on the present value of the property allotted to the employees of the \ndevelopment authority. Since, it was his view that the employees of the development authority \nwere persons covered under section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, he concluded that the \nactivities of the assessee could not be said to be charitable in nature, because

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

10% discount on the present value of the property allotted to the employees of the \ndevelopment authority. Since, it was his view that the employees of the development authority \nwere persons covered under section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, he concluded that the \nactivities of the assessee could not be said to be charitable in nature, because

M/S AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY,FAIZABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

10% discount on the present value of the property allotted to the employees of the \ndevelopment authority. Since, it was his view that the employees of the development authority \nwere persons covered under section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, he concluded that the \nactivities of the assessee could not be said to be charitable in nature, because

M/S AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(FORMERLY AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),AYODHYA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

10% discount on the present value of the property allotted to the employees of the development authority. Since, it was his view that the employees of the development authority were persons covered under section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, he concluded that the activities of the assessee could not be said to be charitable in nature, because

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

10%.\n\n3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition of Rs.68,98,817/- being disallowance of deduction claimed u/s\n54F of the Act, 1961 on account of investment in new house property situated at\nLucknow, without appreciating that the assessee had owned property more than\nthree house

PANKAJ AGARWAL,KANPUR vs. JT.CIT CIRCLE-1(1)(1), KANPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Pankaj Agarwal, 7/151, Ratan Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Majestic, Opp. Sony World, Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur-208002 Kanpur-208001 Pan:Abjfs4912R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma Sr Dr & Sh Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21.08.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit (A) Has The Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Loss In Trading In Derivatives Business Treating The Same As Capital Loss, As Against Assessee'S Claim Of Business Loss, To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, Which Order Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Disallowance Made By The Ao & Upheld Be Deleted. 2. Because On A Proper Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Also On The Interpretation Of The Provisions Of Sec 43(5), It Would Be Found The Loss Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Trading In Derivative Is Neither A Speculative Loss Nor A Capital Loss, The Same Should Ought To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, The Cit (A) Has Erred, In Treating The Same As Short Term Capital Loss.

property and thereby a capital asset. There was transfer of capital asset when the transaction was squared by an opposite corresponding transaction and similarly when squaring up was on expiry of the contract, it should be treated as extinguishment of rights in capital asset as per section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. She pointed out that

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

property, interest on differed or delayed payments, thus what was\nemerging was that the activity of the assessee was purely that of a commercial\norganization. Therefore, the ld. AO held that the surplus of the assessee was not\nincidental to its activities but was the desired outcome of its activities. He further\ncommented that the exemption enjoyed under section 10

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

property, interest on differed or delayed payments, thus what was\nemerging was that the activity of the assessee was purely that of a commercial\norganization. Therefore, the ld. AO held that the surplus of the assessee was not\nincidental to its activities but was the desired outcome of its activities. He further\ncommented that the exemption enjoyed under section 10

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

property, interest on differed or delayed payments, thus what was emerging was that the activity of the assessee was purely that of a commercial organization. Therefore, the ld. AO held that the surplus of the assessee was not incidental to its activities but was the desired outcome of its activities. He further commented that the exemption enjoyed under section 10

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

property, interest on differed or delayed payments, thus what was\nemerging was that the activity of the assessee was purely that of a commercial\norganization. Therefore, the ld. AO held that the surplus of the assessee was not\nincidental to its activities but was the desired outcome of its activities. He further\ncommented that the exemption enjoyed under section 10

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

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

property, interest on differed or delayed payments, thus what was\nemerging was that the activity of the assessee was purely that of a commercial\norganization. Therefore, the ld. AO held that the surplus of the assessee was not\nincidental to its activities but was the desired outcome of its activities. He further\ncommented that the exemption enjoyed under section 10

U.P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

property, interest on differed or delayed payments, thus what was\nemerging was that the activity of the assessee was purely that of a commercial\norganization. Therefore, the ld. AO held that the surplus of the assessee was not\nincidental to its activities but was the desired outcome of its activities. He further\ncommented that the exemption enjoyed under section 10

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

35,000/- to his son AlokPandey (PAN-CZZPP5325B). Considering the provision of Sec. 50C, the liability of Long Term Capital Gain was computed amounting to Rs.68,98,817/- and claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act against the investment made in house property situated at 57, Laxmanpuri, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. However, Ld. AO rejected the claim of assessee