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

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

6. The ld. AO was not satisfied with the replies submitted by the assessee. He observed that on 27.04.2014, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had rejected the SLP of the assessee authority in the case of M/s Jammu Development Authority, in which case the ld. CIT, by order under section 12AA (3) of the Act had withdrawn the registration under

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

6) in the income and expenditure account, the ld. AR submitted \nthat while it was there in the income and expenditure account, it did not reflect in the \ncomputation filed under section 11. She further submitted that, if the exemption under section \n11 was allowed to the assessee, then the claim of depreciation was not allowable but if the \nassessee

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

6) in the income and expenditure account, the ld. AR submitted \nthat while it was there in the income and expenditure account, it did not reflect in the \ncomputation filed under section 11. She further submitted that, if the exemption under section \n11 was allowed to the assessee, then the claim of depreciation was not allowable but if the \nassessee

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

6) in the income and expenditure account, the ld. AR submitted \nthat while it was there in the income and expenditure account, it did not reflect in the \ncomputation filed under section 11. She further submitted that, if the exemption under section \n11 was allowed to the assessee, then the claim of depreciation was not allowable but if the \nassessee

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

6. That assessee has acquired residential property situated at 192/2, Civil Lines, Gonda on 24.10.2017 in which residential house was constructed by assessee and such construction was carried out in the period of AY 2020-21 to AY 2022-23. Further at the time of search construction activities were under progress and as on date of search on 05.02.2022 investment

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

6. That assessee has acquired residential property situated at 192/2, Civil Lines, Gonda on 24.10.2017 in which residential house was constructed by assessee and such construction was carried out in the period of AY 2020-21 to AY 2022-23. Further at the time of search construction activities were under progress and as on date of search on 05.02.2022 investment

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

6. That assessee has acquired residential property situated at 192/2, Civil Lines, Gonda on 24.10.2017 in which residential house was constructed by assessee and such construction was carried out in the period of AY 2020-21 to AY 2022-23. Further at the time of search construction activities were under progress and as on date of search on 05.02.2022 investment

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

6 of 13 10. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice. 5.0 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that the only issue in dispute before this Tribunal was the denial of benefit of section 54F of the Act to the tune of Rs.16,75,288/- being alleged

M/S K.M.GASES PVT.LTD.(NOW K.M.VYAPAR PVT.LTD),KANPUR vs. DY. CIT-VI, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S K.M. Gases Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit-Vi (Now Known As K.M. Vyapar Pvt. Ltd.) Kanpur 11, Moti Bhawan, 52/1, Collectorgant Kanpur (U.P) Tan/Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Saurabh Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

House Property in the subsequent years, in as much as the same has not been disputed by the department also and hence the change of head of income is a clear violation of the rule of consistency as laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, LUCKNOW

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

6. That the Appellant crave leaves to add or amend any one or more of the grounds of appeals, as stated above, as and when need to doing so arises with the prior permission of the Court.” CO No. 13/LKW/2017 1. That the Ld. A.O. wrongly objected the direction of the Ld. CIT Appeal for deleting the addition

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

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee is held to be partly allowed

properties of the\nUPSIDC continued to remain with it till that date and business continued to be\nperformed by the UPSIDC, prior to 2013. Thus, the arguments were summed up by\nstating that the assessee did not fall within the ambit of section 2(5A)(iv) r.w.s.\n2(5B) of the Interest Tax Act, 1974 and the interest earned

SHAILENDRA KUMAR SINGH ,HARDOI vs. ITO-3(2),HARDOI-1, HARDOI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrait(Ss) A. Nos. 795 To 798/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shailendra Kumar Singh Ito-3(2) V. Subhan Khera Sandila, Hardoi- Hardoi-1 241305. Uttar Pradesh-241305. Pan:Cvqps4275L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By: Shri Naeem Khan, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

6 of 9 agricultural land, has been attached along with bank statement for your review and reference. c) Disallowance of Rs 1,07,528/was made on account of disallowance of loss. Actual Facts: For the Assessment Year 2021-22, the appellant has submitted a return of income, whereas a loss of Rs. 1,07,528 has been claimed under

SHILPA KHANDELWAL,BAREILLY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BAREILLY

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Shilpa Khandelwal V. The Dy. Cit-2 330, Kalibari Bareilly Bareilly (U.P) Tan/Pan:Arypk5700A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 04 2025 O R D E R

House Property and Other sources. The assessee filed her return of income for the year under consideration on 17.03.2016, declaring a total income of Rs.10,76,040/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the reason of suspicious sale transactions in shares and exempt Long Term Capital Gains shown in the return of income. During

LUCKNOW EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY,LUCKNOW vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Shri Brahma Prakash Singh, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 94, Vaishali Enclave, Sector-9, Indira Income Tax-2, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow Pan: Ajmps4451L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dharmendra Kumar, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit-2, Lucknow Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act On 14.03.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That Revision Proceeding Initiated U/S 263 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Learned Pr. Cit-2. Lucknow Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 2. That Since Assessment Order Passed By The Ao Was Not Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue, Hence Revision Order Passed By Ld. Pr. Cit-2, Lucknow Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 3. That Ld.Ao Had Examined The Issue & After Being Satisfied By The Documentary Evidences & Explanations Furnished By Appellant, Passed Assessment Order, Hence Revision Order, Cancelling The Assessment Order Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 4. That Where An Order Passed By Ao Is Subject To An Appeal That Had Been Filed, Then Commissioner Cannot Invoke Power Under Section 263 In Such Matters, Which Are Agitated In Such Appeal. Since Issue Under Appeal Before Commissioner (Appeals) & Revision Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Same, Hence, Revision Order Passed By Commissioner Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 5. That The Appellant Seeks Permission To Modify And/Or Add Any Other Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal As The Circumstances Of The Case Might Require Or Justify.”

properties purchased by the assessee during the 6 Shri. Brahma Prakash Singh A.Y. 2012-13 assessment year under consideration from time to time. Enquiries have been made from the bank Manager, from Brahma Prakash Singh (HUF) and responses have been filed in respect of all these enquiries. After examining the information, explanation and evidences furnished by the assessee

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

section 11.\nWe notice that even while the Assessing Officer was primarily focused on trying to\ndemonstrate that the activities of the assessee parishad were not charitable, he still\nfound time to go through the accounts to observe that the assessee had applied less\nthan 85% of its receipts during the year and was therefore required to file an\napplication

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

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

house property under section 54F of the Income Tax Act and the same was liable to be allowed. However, the ld. CIT(A) had not considered any of these issues and had dismissed the case of the assessee without assigning any reasons thereof. Accordingly, it was prayed that the matter should be restored back to the file of the lower

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