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

section 148, dated 30.3.2019 (APB:16) was issued for initiating the reassessment proceedings. The reasons recorded by the Page 8 of 16 Assessing Officer (APB:19 to 21) for initiating the reassessment proceedings are scanned and reproduced below: Page 9 of 16 Page 10 of 16 14. Thus, to reiterate, and as evident from the reasons recorded

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

16-17 \n\nI.T.A. Nos.402& 405/Lkw/2025 \n Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2022-23 \nDy.C.I.T., \nCentral Circle-2, \nLucknow. \n(Appellant) \nVs. Rakesh Kumar Pandey, \nS/o Shri Surya Narayan Pandey, \nVill-Devarda, Block-Belsar, \nGonda-271401 \nPAN:ATIPP6520B \n(Respondent) \n\nI.T.A. No.460/Lkw/2025 \n Assessment year:2017-18 \nA.C.I.T., \nCentral Circle-2, \nLucknow. \n(Appellant) \nVs. Rakesh Kumar Pandey, \nS/o Shri

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

16-17 I.T.A. Nos.402& 405/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2022-23 Dy.C.I.T., Central Circle-2, Lucknow. (Appellant) Vs. Rakesh Kumar Pandey, S/o Shri Surya Narayan Pandey, Vill-Devarda, Block-Belsar, Gonda-271401 PAN:ATIPP6520B (Respondent) I.T.A. No.460/Lkw/2025 Assessment year:2017-18 A.C.I.T., Central Circle-2, Lucknow. (Appellant) Vs. Rakesh Kumar Pandey, S/o Shri Surya Narayan Pandey, Vill-Devarda, Block-Belsar

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

16-17\n\nI.T.A. Nos.402& 405/Lkw/2025\n Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2022-23\nDy.C.I.T.,\nCentral Circle-2,\nLucknow.\n(Appellant)\nVs.\nRakesh Kumar Pandey,\nS/o Shri Surya Narayan Pandey,\nVill-Devarda, Block-Belsar,\nGonda-271401\nPAN:ATIPP6520B\n(Respondent)\n\nI.T.A. No.460/Lkw/2025\n Assessment year:2017-18\nA.C.I.T.,\nCentral Circle-2,\nLucknow.\n(Appellant)\nVs.\nRakesh Kumar Pandey,\nS/o Shri

SUSHIL TULI,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(5), SHAHJAHANPUR

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

section 22 of the Act are not at all applicable. Hence, the addition made as ‘income from house property’ is not sustainable. Accordingly, the order under appeal is reversed and the addition is deleted. 16

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

16-17\n\nI.T.A. Nos.402& 405/Lkw/2025\n Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2022-23\nDy.C.I.T.,\nCentral Circle-2,\nLucknow.\n(Appellant)\nVs. Rakesh Kumar Pandey,\nS/o Shri Surya Narayan Pandey,\nVill-Devarda, Block-Belsar,\nGonda-271401\nPAN:ATIPP6520B\n(Respondent)\n\nI.T.A. No.460/Lkw/2025\n Assessment year:2017-18\nA.C.I.T.,\nCentral Circle-2,\nLucknow.\n(Appellant)\nVs. Rakesh Kumar Pandey,\nS/o Shri

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

section 46A to consider these clarificatory evidences so adduced 16. That the CITA Faceless erred in law by choosing to ignore that it has been vested with sufficient powers to decide appeal on merits on all aspects, in order to render justice by virtue of exercise of appellate power vested with him. The powers conferred vide

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

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

16) of the Act laid down that once the plan was approved, the lands and buildings would be used only according to the plan. Section 20 concerned the funds of the authority and stated that they could only be used in the administration of the Act. Section 41 dealt with control by the state Govt and gave it the power

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 boards, urban development authorities, various boards (like tea board, coffee board, rubber board etc.), enjoyed blanket exemption from tax under Section 10 of the Act and their incomes did not form part of the taxable income. These provisions were contained in clauses (20), (20A),(22A), (23) etc. Of Section 10 of the Act. 8. However, these provisions were omitted

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 boards, urban development authorities, various boards (like tea board, coffee board, rubber board etc.), enjoyed blanket exemption from tax under Section 10 of the Act and their incomes did not form part of the taxable income. These provisions were contained in clauses (20), (20A),(22A), (23) etc. Of Section 10 of the Act. 8. However, these provisions were omitted

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 boards, urban development authorities, various boards (like tea board, coffee board, rubber board etc.), enjoyed blanket exemption from tax under Section 10 of the Act and their incomes did not form part of the taxable income. These provisions were contained in clauses (20), (20A),(22A), (23) etc. Of Section 10 of the Act. 8. However, these provisions were omitted

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 boards, urban development authorities, various boards (like tea board, coffee board, rubber board etc.), enjoyed blanket exemption from tax under Section 10 of the Act and their incomes did not form part of the taxable income. These provisions were contained in clauses (20), (20A),(22A), (23) etc. Of Section 10 of the Act. 8. However, these provisions were omitted

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 boards, urban development authorities, various boards (like tea board, coffee board, rubber board etc.), enjoyed blanket exemption from tax under Section 10 of the Act and their incomes did not form part of the taxable income. These provisions were contained in clauses (20), (20A),(22A), (23) etc. Of Section 10 of the Act. 8. However, these provisions were omitted

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 boards, urban development authorities, various boards (like tea board, coffee board, rubber board etc.), enjoyed blanket exemption from tax under Section 10 of the Act and their incomes did not form part of the taxable income. These provisions were contained in clauses (20), (20A),(22A), (23) etc. Of Section 10 of the Act. 8. However, these provisions were omitted

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 boards, urban development authorities, various boards (like tea board, coffee board, rubber board etc.), enjoyed blanket exemption from tax under Section 10 of the Act and their incomes did not form part of the taxable income. These provisions were contained in clauses (20), (20A),(22A), (23) etc. Of Section 10 of the Act. 8. However, these provisions were omitted

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 boards, urban development authorities, various boards (like tea board, coffee board, rubber board etc.), enjoyed blanket exemption from tax under Section 10 of the Act and their incomes did not form part of the taxable income. These provisions were contained in clauses (20), (20A),(22A), (23) etc. Of Section 10 of the Act. 8. However, these provisions were omitted

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

16,75,288/- on the ground that the said amount was neither utilized for the purchase or the construction of new assets nor deposited in the Capital Gains Account. 4. BECAUSE on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the contention of the "appellant" that he did not deposit the un-utilised capital gain in the Capital Gain

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

16) of the Act laid down that once the plan was approved, the lands and \nbuildings would be used only according to the plan. Section 20 concerned the funds of the \nauthority and stated that they could only be used in the administration of the Act. Section 41 \ndealt with control by the state Govt and gave it the power