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\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

56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, without appreciating that the \nassessee had owned property more than three houses prior to the new \ninvestment in house property donated by violation of provisions of section

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

Properties vs. ACIT 340 CTR 690Bom; Kanakanala Ravinder Reddy v ITO 334 CTR 646 Telangna. Jasjit Singh and Others v Uol 340 CTR P&H Jatinder Singh Bhangu v Uol 339 CTR 473 P&H, Kulwant Singh v Uol 341 CTR 700 P&H. The income tax act being an All India statute the judgments and judicial pronouncements

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)

property referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 56 is required to be made, the Assessing Officer may require the ITA No.30/LKW/2023 & C.O. No.15/LKW/2023 Page 22 of 28 Valuation Officer to make an estimate of such value and report the same to him. (2) The Valuation Officer to whom a reference is made under sub-section (1) shall

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

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

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

house under construction and native place Gonda\nconsidering the supporting documents placed on record and genuineness of\ntransaction.\n9. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the addition of Rs.68,98,817/- claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act – Rs.\n68,98,817/-.\n10. Whether on facts and circumstances

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

Housing Projects Ltd. ITA No.179/2011 HC of\nDelhi - Dt. of order 1.3.2012 343 ITR 329(Delhi)\nIn the present case, the findings recorded not gone into and has not given\nany by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has reason for observing that\nthe order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous. The finding\nrecorded

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

ALOK GUPTA,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSING OFFICER NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the I. T. Act. In the aforesaid assessment order, the assessee’s income was assessed at Rs.38,34,272/- (rounded off to Rs.38,34,270/-). In the aforesaid assessment order an addition of Rs.23,67,572/- was made u/s 56(2) of the Act. The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid addition made

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

housing projects. Ld AR thereafter drew our attention to Govt Order no 2157/aath-1-11- \n184vividh/2010 by which the villages being brought under urban areas were ordered to be \ndeveloped by the authority to enhance the facilities in them and it was submitted that this was \nan example of cross subsidization by which the authority was demonstrated to be existing for \ncharitable

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

In the result all six appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

housing projects. Ld AR thereafter drew our attention to Govt Order no 2157/aath-1-11- \n184vividh/2010 by which the villages being brought under urban areas were ordered to be \ndeveloped by the authority to enhance the facilities in them and it was submitted that this was \nan example of cross subsidization by which the authority was demonstrated to be existing for \ncharitable

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

housing projects. Ld AR thereafter drew our attention to Govt Order no 2157/aath-1-11-\n184vividh/2010 by which the villages being brought under urban areas were ordered to be \ndeveloped by the authority to enhance the facilities in them and it was submitted that this was \nan example of cross subsidization by which the authority was demonstrated to be existing for \ncharitable

ANKITA BHARTIA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

house property and income from other sources. During the course of search in the case of another assessee, a valuation report related to the assessee was found, wherein the jewellery possessed by the assessee was found and the valuation of the jewellery was determined at Rs.15,95,965/-. In response to noticed u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed

REHANA BEGAM,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(3)(3), KANPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Rehana Begum V. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3)(3) 94/115 Pench Bagh, Kanpur- 208001. Kanpur-208001. Pan:Bjbpb6817R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 20 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23 01 2025 O R D E R

section 56 without taking into account that SOC is not applicable on this transaction. In the impugned ex-parte order is wholly non-speaking and unsustainable in law. 4. BECAUSE, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the additional evidence which was issued by the tehsildar of the respective tehsil where the land is situated clearly specifies