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

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

Properties vs. ACIT 340 CTR 690Bom; Kanakanala Ravinder Reddy v ITO 334 CTR 646 Telangna. Jasjit Singh and Others v Uol 340 CTR P&H Jatinder Singh Bhangu v Uol 339 CTR 473 P&H, Kulwant Singh v Uol 341 CTR 700 P&H. The income tax act being an All India statute the judgments and judicial pronouncements

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

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 and income from other sources. These two issues, it remains undisputed, were not the subject- matter of reassessment. The solitary matter involved in the reassessment proceedings was that concerning the alleged escapement of income of Rs.6,64,000/-, comprising income claimed as short term capital gain. 12. After considering the replies dated

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER-6(4), LUCKNOW vs. SHRI ZARRAR HUSSAIN, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Years:2011-12

section 148. The reason were not furnished by the Assessing Officer to the assessee. Since the assessment was getting time barred, the Assessing Officer made additions on account of the income from house property

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

148 could be taken; that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment on the basis of the photocopies of the seized material when the original documents were not with him, especially when the assessee had surrendered Rs. 50 lakhs under section 132 before the DDIT (Invt.), consequent to receipt of notice under section

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

148 could be taken; that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment on the basis of the photocopies of the seized material when the original documents were not with him, especially when the assessee had surrendered Rs. 50 lakhs under section 132 before the DDIT (Invt.), consequent to receipt of notice under section

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

148 could be taken; that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment on the basis of the photocopies of the seized material when the original documents were not with him, especially when the assessee had surrendered Rs. 50 lakhs under section 132 before the DDIT (Invt.), consequent to receipt of notice under section

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

148 could be taken; that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment on the basis of the photocopies of the seized material when the original documents were not with him, especially when the assessee had surrendered Rs. 50 lakhs under section 132 before the DDIT (Invt.), consequent to receipt of notice under section

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

148 could be taken; that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment on the basis of the photocopies of the seized material when the original documents were not with him, especially when the assessee had surrendered Rs. 50 lakhs under section 132 before the DDIT (Invt.), consequent to receipt of notice under section

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

148 could be taken; that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment on the basis of the photocopies of the seized material when the original documents were not with him, especially when the assessee had surrendered Rs. 50 lakhs under section 132 before the DDIT (Invt.), consequent to receipt of notice under section

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(4), RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Bareilly V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2472C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Amritsar V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs4654E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Kanpur(I) V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2468Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Guwahati V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2462E (Appellant) (Respondent)

housing projects and multi-storeyed buildings (residential/commercial/malls). It consists of ten partners. Eight of them are land owning companies (‘LOC’, for short) who brought in rights over the land owned by them. Mangalya Township Private Limited, the ninth partner, provided finance. The tenth partner, M/s Sahara Prime City Limited (‘SPCL’, for short) brought in rights over its land as well

SMT. NIRMALA NIGAM,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(5), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Nirmala Nigam V. Income Tax Officer 3(5) 104/102, P. Road Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Afcpn4993C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20 02 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 02 2019

house property during F.Y. 2008-09 relevant to A.Y. 2009-10 for a consideration of Rs.21,50,000/- which is duly reflected in her Balance Sheet filed by the assessee for the year under consideration. Further, the assessee has purchased an immovable property amounting to Rs.65,57,000/- which is duly reflected in the ITS query in AST during

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

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

SACHIN 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

148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132-A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall— (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such