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

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

25 pages has concentrated on just a sum of Rs.27,00,000 as cash deposit in the Bank account of ITA No.400/LKW/2025 Page 4 of 26 Appellant here u/s 69A and where it has suo motu accepted that this contrived amount of Rs.28,87,970 was nothing but that it "...consists of the same 27 lakhs cash deposits..." Case laws

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

house) within the time limit allowed u/s 139(4) of the Act and consequently the claim of deduction did not get deleted merely on the ground that amount was not deposited in Capital Gains Account within the time limit u/s 139(1). 8. BECAUSE various case laws relied upon by the "appellant" was fully supported the case of the "appellant

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)

house property submitted by the assessee and instead adopting a sum as the valuation of the property by calling for a report of the District Valuation Officer? The learned Madras High Court held that in the absence of the Tribunal recording that the books of account maintained by the assessee are not credible, it would not be open to call

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

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

25. This to our mind may be relevant to determine and decide whether an institution was carrying on charitable activities and whether or not it is violating Section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act but this alone is not the only or sole requirement to determine and decide the question/aspect of benefit. What the said Section postulates and requires

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

25. This to our mind may be relevant to determine and decide whether an institution was carrying on charitable activities and whether or not it is violating Section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act but this alone is not the only or sole requirement to determine and decide the question/aspect of benefit. What the said Section postulates and requires

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

25. This to our mind may be relevant to determine and decide whether an institution was carrying on charitable activities and whether or not it is violating Section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act but this alone is not the only or sole requirement to determine and decide the question/aspect of benefit. What the said Section postulates and requires

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

25. This to our mind may be relevant to determine and decide whether an institution was carrying on charitable activities and whether or not it is violating Section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act but this alone is not the only or sole requirement to determine and decide the question/aspect of benefit. What the said Section postulates and requires

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

25. This to our mind may be relevant to determine and decide whether an institution was carrying on charitable activities and whether or not it is violating Section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act but this alone is not the only or sole requirement to determine and decide the question/aspect of benefit. What the said Section postulates and requires

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

25. This to our mind may be relevant to determine and decide whether an institution was carrying on charitable activities and whether or not it is violating Section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act but this alone is not the only or sole requirement to determine and decide the question/aspect of benefit. What the said Section postulates and requires

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

25. This to our mind may be relevant to determine and decide whether an institution was carrying on charitable activities and whether or not it is violating Section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act but this alone is not the only or sole requirement to determine and decide the question/aspect of benefit. What the said Section postulates and requires

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

25. This to our mind may be relevant to determine and decide whether an institution was carrying on charitable activities and whether or not it is violating Section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act but this alone is not the only or sole requirement to determine and decide the question/aspect of benefit. What the said Section postulates and requires

INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW vs. U.P AWAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD, LUCKNOW

In the result ITA Nos.532 & 533/Lkw/2014 and ITA Nos

25% of legal expenses as had been made in the assessment.\n4. BECAUSE the amount of expenses claimed under the above mentioned head was\nfully supported by proper bills and vouchers and the same were duly accounted for in\nthe books of account which had been subjected to twin audits and no defect or\ndiscrepancy having been found and specified

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

25. In his orders for the A.Ys. 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, the ld. CIT(A) traced the legislative history of exemption status of local authorities. He pointed out that prior to abolition of section 10(20A) of the I.T. Act, local authorities enjoyed tax exempt status, but the section was removed from the Act by Finance

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