KAMAL KANT VERMA,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 132(4) of the Act on 3rd August, 2015 and letter dated 31st July, 2015 issued by Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal. The case was centralised as per the orders passed under section 127 of the Act and a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 6th September, 2016, which was duly served. Upon receipt of notice

M/S STANDARD FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT LTD,HAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC-II, KANPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

section 132(4) of the Act on 3rd August, 2015 and letter dated 31st July, 2015 issued by Sh. Madho Gopal Agarwal. The case was centralised as per the orders passed under section 127 of the Act and a notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 6th September, 2016, which was duly served. Upon receipt of notice

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

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

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

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

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

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\nI.T.A. No.608/Lkw/2024, A.Y. 2020-21 (Revenue’s Appeal)\n\n1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition of Rs.93,93,846/- on account

SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

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

properties seized from the house of the petitioner. However, since there was some confusion as to whom the seized assets had to be released and also whether the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the notice under section 132A of the Act had been granted or not. a review petition was dismissed in Commissioner of Police v. Sadruddin H. Javeri

SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

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

properties seized from the house of the petitioner. However, since there was some confusion as to whom the seized assets had to be released and also whether the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the notice under section 132A of the Act had been granted or not. a review petition was dismissed in Commissioner of Police v. Sadruddin H. Javeri

SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

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

properties seized from the house of the petitioner. However, since there was some confusion as to whom the seized assets had to be released and also whether the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the notice under section 132A of the Act had been granted or not. a review petition was dismissed in Commissioner of Police v. Sadruddin H. Javeri

SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

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

properties seized from the house of the petitioner. However, since there was some confusion as to whom the seized assets had to be released and also whether the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the notice under section 132A of the Act had been granted or not. a review petition was dismissed in Commissioner of Police v. Sadruddin H. Javeri

SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

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

properties seized from the house of the petitioner. However, since there was some confusion as to whom the seized assets had to be released and also whether the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the notice under section 132A of the Act had been granted or not. a review petition was dismissed in Commissioner of Police v. Sadruddin H. Javeri

SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

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

properties seized from the house of the petitioner. However, since there was some confusion as to whom the seized assets had to be released and also whether the prayer of the petitioner for quashing the notice under section 132A of the Act had been granted or not. a review petition was dismissed in Commissioner of Police v. Sadruddin H. Javeri

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\nI.T.A. No.608/Lkw/2024, A.Y. 2020-21 (Revenue’s Appeal)\n\n4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition of Rs.1,74,492/- on account

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR., KANPUR vs. M/S. SUSHRUT INSTITUTE OF PLASTIC SURGERY PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic Central Circle 2 Surgery Private Limited Kanpur 29, Shahmeena Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.15/Lkw/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No.30/Lkw/2023] Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic V. The Acit Surgery Private Limited Central Circle 2 29, Shahmeena Road Kanpur Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Cross - Objector) (Respondent)

132(4) of the Act shows that these persons had categorically stated in their statements that the seized diaries BK-8, BK-9, BK-10 and BK-11 contained denominations of currencies noted down by the Accountant vis- à-vis cash deposited in the bank account and that the cash receipts were properly recorded in the books of account

(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

house property and valuer’s report was so meager that one would assume it to be bona fide difference fit to be ignored. 3.7.5. Hence, as the difference in the revised estimate made by the Valuation Officer and that claimed by the assessee works out to less than 15% in respect of the three buildings, and valuation is only

(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

house property and valuer’s report was so meager that one would assume it to be bona fide difference fit to be ignored. 3.7.5. Hence, as the difference in the revised estimate made by the Valuation Officer and that claimed by the assessee works out to less than 15% in respect of the three buildings, and valuation is only

(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

house property and valuer’s report was so meager that one would assume it to be bona fide difference fit to be ignored. 3.7.5. Hence, as the difference in the revised estimate made by the Valuation Officer and that claimed by the assessee works out to less than 15% in respect of the three buildings, and valuation is only