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

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

1 \nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \nLUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW \nBEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER \nAND \nSHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER \nI.T.A. Nos.347 to 353/Lkw/2025) \n Assessment year:2014-15 to 19-20 & 22-23 \nRakesh Kumar Pandey, \nS/o Shri Surya Narayan Pandey, \nVill-Devarda, Block-Belsar, \nGonda-271401 \nPAN:ATIPP6520B \n(Appellant) \nVs. \nA.C.I.T., \nCentral Circle

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

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

AYYUB JAFRI,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

54F. The ld. AO pointed out to the assessee that additional documents were required to examine the claim such as sale / purchase deeds, documents in support of claimed costs of improvement, evidence of deposit of sale consideration into capital gain accounts, bills and vouchers pertaining to cost of house constructed by you, details of parties to whom payments were made

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

1,59,98,27,836/- which works out at Rs. 11,19,87,949/-. Since the appellant has shown income from business at Rs. 10,07,00,526/-, thus, the difference in profit works out at Rs. 1,12,87,423/-. Thus, the addition to the tune of Rs. 1,27,86,690/- (Rs. 1

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

1,59,98,27,836/- which works out at Rs. 11,19,87,949/-. Since the appellant has shown income from business at Rs. 10,07,00,526/-, thus, the difference in profit works out at Rs. 1,12,87,423/-. Thus, the addition to the tune of Rs. 1,27,86,690/- (Rs. 1

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

1,59,98,27,836/- which works out at Rs. 11,19,87,949/-. Since the appellant has shown income from business at Rs. 10,07,00,526/-, thus, the difference in profit works out at Rs. 1,12,87,423/-. Thus, the addition to the tune of Rs. 1,27,86,690/- (Rs. 1

SMT. SITA KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

house property at Rs.88,00,000/-. The investment in purchase of property has been made after due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. Due date of filing of return by the assessee was 30/09/2015. The Assessing Officer noted that investment in new property of Rs.88,00,000/- was made after due date of filing

KARUNESH KUMAR SHUKLA,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), LUCKNOW

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

1 Karunesh Kumar Shukla A.Y. 2018-19 5. The appellant craves for leave to add, modify, amend or delete any other and further grounds of appeal with permission.” 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee did not file a return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19. Upon receipt of information that the assessee had received

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

1 3164654X100/12460146), which is over and above 10%.\n3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition of Rs.68,98,817/- being disallowance of deduction claimed u/s\n54F of the Act, 1961 on account of investment in new house property situated at\nLucknow without appreciating the fact that

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

1), dt31.03.2024 did not draw\nadverse inference on investment in above said property however on identical\n35\nfacts in AY 2020-21 & AY 2021-22, he made addition of Rs.174492/- and\nRs.749062/- which itself is below 10% of value estimated by VO in respective\nyears, which is against the facts of the case and related law. Further

KASHMIRI LAL,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD-2(2), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Kashmiri Lal V. The Ito 126/33, Block Q Ward 2(2) Govind Nagar Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Asarpl8577C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adjournment Application) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 08 2024 O R D E R

1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) on the returned income. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on a total income of Rs.21,15,680/- by making an addition of Rs.14,43,120/- on account of capital gains. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred

AVNEEDRA SINGH RATHORE,KANPUR vs. ITO-1(1), KANPUR, KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

section 151(2) of the Income Tax Act from the JCIT, the entire assessment are void-abinito and be quashed. 2. Because there being no reason to believe nor there being any material assessment proceeding initiated are bad in law and be quashed. 3. Because the AO as well as CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact