SANTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, NFAC

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Santosh Kumar Shukla V. The Assessment Unit 11A/141, Vrindavan Colony Nfac Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bawps5372J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalabh Singh, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.03.2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was An Employee Of Planning Research & Action Division Of State Planning Institute, Since 1993. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148A(B) Of The Act, Vide Dated 16.03.2022 For The Reason That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits/Time Deposits In His Bank Account. In Response To Notice Under Section Under Section 148 Of The Act, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29.04.2022, Declaring A Total Income Of

house property by Smt Geeta Awasthi from the seller Smt Seema Vij in Lucknow ITA No.400/LKW/2025 Page 14 of 26 where Bank Statement wherein on the same day the same said Amount was found as debit and credit entry was ignored through a highly opinionated statement vide page 23 of the Assessment order "it is pertinent to mention here that

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 at Rs.57,41,669/- after claiming deductions under section 24 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’) and had also shown loss of Rs.4,68,861/- from Business/Profession. The Computation of Income filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings also revealed that the assessee had claimed deduction under section

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 of assessee in support to justify increase profit percentile. In the assessment order the observation of the AO while estimating net profit @ 11% of Gross

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 of assessee in support to justify increase profit percentile. In the assessment order the observation of the AO while estimating net profit @ 11% of Gross

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 of assessee in support to justify increase profit percentile. In the assessment order the observation of the AO while estimating net profit @ 11% of Gross

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-APPEAL, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

housing, roads, development and maintenance of parks (boost to environment) plantation of trees (again pertaining to environment), providing sewerage system (clean and healthy environment) are all objects for the welfare of the people of the Raebareli Development Authority district; as also these are objects of general public utility. However, since these are the objects of general publicity utility

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

housing, roads, development and maintenance of parks (boost to environment) plantation of trees (again pertaining to environment), providing sewerage system (clean and healthy environment) are all objects for the welfare of the people of the Raebareli Development Authority district; as also these are objects of general public utility. However, since these are the objects of general publicity utility

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

housing, roads, development and maintenance of parks (boost to environment) plantation of trees (again pertaining to environment), providing sewerage system (clean and healthy environment) are all objects for the welfare of the people of the Raebareli Development Authority district; as also these are objects of general public utility. However, since these are the objects of general publicity utility

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

housing, roads, development and maintenance of parks (boost to environment) plantation of trees (again pertaining to environment), providing sewerage system (clean and healthy environment) are all objects for the welfare of the people of the Raebareli Development Authority district; as also these are objects of general public utility. However, since these are the objects of general publicity utility

SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH ,HARDOI vs. ITO-3(2),HARDOI-1, HARDOI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrait(Ss) A. Nos. 795 To 798/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shailendra Kumar Singh Ito-3(2) V. Subhan Khera Sandila, Hardoi- Hardoi-1 241305. Uttar Pradesh-241305. Pan:Cvqps4275L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By: Shri Naeem Khan, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

14,956.00, along with penalty u/s 271AAC(1) This discrepancy arises from specific additions and disallowances along with levy of penalty made by the Income Tax Department, based on a best judgment assessment, which is not true. a) An addition of Rs 28,07,400/was made in respect of cash deposit . Actual Facts: The cash transaction referenced above is associated

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)

14,39,408/- and Rs.11,44,49,581/-, thus totaling to Rs.24,58,88,989/- and this amount is more than Rs.16,82,01,789/- which is sum total of BK-08 to BK-11. Thus after demonetization year i.e. 31.03.2017, total cash receipts shown by appellant are much more than the cash receipts found in these impounded material. Therefore

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

REKHA BAJPAI,LUCKNOW vs. NFAC, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Rekha Bajpai V. Assessment Unit 551-Chh/122-A Income Tax Department New Sardari Khera National Faceless Alambagh, Lucknow Assessment Centre Tan/Pan:Aevpb7662Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 05 12 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 12 2024 O R D E R

section 143(3) read with 144B of the Act, after computing the income of the assessee as under: SI Description Amount (in INR) No 1. Income as per Return of Income 5,33,760 filed 2. Income as computed u/s143(1)(a) 3. Variation in respect interest 35,651/- claimed against the house property. 4. Variation in respect interest 14

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

14,642/- as per the assessment order is confirmed. 5.3. With regard to property 2, the appellant has made no submission with regard to denial of cost of improvement in the assessment order. With regard to invocation of section 50C in his case, the appellant has submitted that since the Stamp duty value of the property is more than

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

14 of the Constitution and because of this order, since the assessee did not remain a public trust but rather was one in violation of section 13(3) of the Act, the claim made by the assessee under section 11 was not maintainable. The ld. AO also made additions on account of depreciation claimed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA UP

house property situated at\nLucknow without appreciating the fact that the assessee had owned property more than\n10 years, property other than giving new investment in the property suted at\nLucknow at the time of transfer of property that violates the provisions of section 54F\nof Income Tax Act, 1961.\nI.T.A. No.608/Lkw/2024, A.Y. 2020-21 (Revenue’s Appeal)\n1. Whether

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

house property\nsituated at 57, Laxmanpuri, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. However, Ld. AO\nrejected the claim of assessee on following ground being details filed in ITR\nin AL schedule:-\ni. opp. VikasBhawan, Pant Nagar, Civil Lines, Gonda\nii. Balrampur\niii. Poly opp. VikasBhawan, Pant Nagar, Civil Lines, Gonda\niv. 57, Laxmanpuri, Indira Nagar, Lucknow\n37\nIgnoring the submission of assessee

TAFSEER AHMAD,LUCKNOW vs. DDIT/ADIT(INTL TAX)LKN, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

house property and from other sources. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. During the course of assessment proceedings, while going through the bank statements, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer (AO) that the assessee had made cash deposits ITA(IT) No.517/LKW/2025 Page 2 of 8 of Rs.14,44,000/- in his bank account No.126301075021

PRECIOUS BJUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, , BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.66/Lkw/2022 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Precious Buildtech Pvt Ltd V. Pcit Harmony Apartment, Adiacent Income Tax Department, To Bedi International School, Bareilly-243001. Dental College Road, Pilibhit Bypass Road, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aagcp1255R अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri Mazhar Akram, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24 07 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 09 2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / O R D E R

house property”. (v) Besides, being the demonetization assessment year, the AO was required to examine the genuineness of the source of the cash deposits in old SBNSs, if any. CBDT vide internal guidance note for assistance of AOs for verification of cash deposits and framing of assessments in demonetization related cases dated: 13.06.2019 (F.No. 225/145/2019- ITA-II) has issued approach