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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

20-21 Rakesh Kumar Pandey, S/o Shri Surya Narayan Pandey, Vill-Devarda, Block-Belsar, Gonda-271401 PAN:ATIPP6520B (Appellant) Vs. A.C.I.T., Central Circle-2, Lucknow. (Respondent) O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M. (A) For the sake of convenience and brevity these appeals and Cross Objections (“COs” for short) pertaining to the same assessee are hereby disposed

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

property shall be used for "charitable purposes" but would vest in State Government. These observations are in the teeth of what has been observed by Constitution Bench in Ramtanu Cooperative Housing Society Limited (supra). 64. CIT (E) then tried to involve itself with Section 10(20A) and Section 10(20

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

property shall be used for "charitable purposes" but would vest in State Government. These observations are in the teeth of what has been observed by Constitution Bench in Ramtanu Cooperative Housing Society Limited (supra). 64. CIT (E) then tried to involve itself with Section 10(20A) and Section 10(20

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross Objections of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

property shall be used for "charitable purposes" but would vest in State Government. These observations are in the teeth of what has been observed by Constitution Bench in Ramtanu Cooperative Housing Society Limited (supra). 64. CIT (E) then tried to involve itself with Section 10(20A) and Section 10(20

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, Short Term Capital Gains and Other Sources, as declared by the assessee. The ld. PCIT exercised the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the I.T. Act on those issues which were dealt with by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment order passed on 7.5.2013, and which issues did not form the subject-matter of the reassessment. This

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

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

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

Section 22 are must for treating Rental Income as Income from House property which it do not satisfy, 1) That the assessee must be the Owner of the Property (whereas the assessee was not the ITA No.553/LKW/2016 Page 2 of 6 Owner of property let out but was just a Tenant) 2) That the Property let out must

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

20-21\nRakesh Kumar Pandey,\nS/o Shri Surya Narayan Pandey,\nVill-Devarda, Block-Belsar,\nGonda-271401\nPAN:ATIPP6520B\n(Appellant)\nVs. A.C.I.T.,\nCentral Circle-2,\nLucknow.\n(Respondent)\n\nRevenue by Shri H. S. Usmani, CIT (D.R.)\nAssessee by Shri Mahendra Kumar, F.C.A.\nShri Reghunath Mishra, Advocate\n\nO R D E R\nPER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

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

property by Smt Geeta Awasthi from Rekha Vij and debits of such money towards Rekha Vij reflects only utilization of such cash and not generation of such cash" 20. That the CIT A Faceless erred in law and on facts by failing to apply the intent purpose and scope of section 69A to the facts which had to be read

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

properties, about 10%-10% of the area has to be set aside for EWS and LIG properties. Only 5% area of saleable area is allocated for commercial properties. Besides these, provisions are made for economically weaker section of society for commercial area as certain percentage has to be made available for local shops and shops for barber, vegetable vendor

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. 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