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

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

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

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

4. The assessee is aggrieved against these orders and has accordingly come in appeal before us. Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.A. (hereinafter referred to as the ld. AR) submitted that the order of the ld. CIT(A) had been passed in violation of the 2 Karunesh Kumar Shukla A.Y. 2018-19 principles of natural justice without providing adequate opportunity of being

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

section 54F on the unutilized amount as the said amount has not been invested by the appellant in purchase/construction of new residential house till the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act nor the same has been deposited by the appellant in Capital Gain Account with Bank as stipulated u/s 54F(4) before

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

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

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

house property\nsituated at 57, Laxmanpuri, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. However, Ld. AO\nrejected the claim of assessee on following ground being details filed in ITR\nin AL schedule:-\ni. opp. VikasBhawan, Pant Nagar, Civil Lines, Gonda\nii. Balrampur\niii. Poly opp. VikasBhawan, Pant Nagar, Civil Lines, Gonda\niv. 57, Laxmanpuri, Indira Nagar, Lucknow\n37\nIgnoring the submission of assessee

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

section 54F. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow a sum of Rs.3,99,950/- (being one fourth share of the appellant). From the capital gain of Rs.14,43,120/- and assess the balance of Rs.10,49,170/- as capital gains, chargeable to tax.” 4. Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal, challenging the action of the Addl./JCIT

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