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

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

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

SHIMLA PROPERTIES,LUCKNOW vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 Shimla Properties V. The Pcit 30C, Datiya House Lucknow Khursheed Bagh Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ablfs9732M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16 08 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 09 2022 O R D E R

House Property) at Rs.26,49,780/- and plot income (Income from Other Sources) of Rs.68,600/- under the head ‘other sources’; that the case of the assessee is covered by the provisions of Explanation 2(a) to Section 263 of I.T. Act, as per which, an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous Page

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

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-APPEAL, NFAC DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

housing, roads, development and maintenance of parks (boost to environment) plantation of trees (again pertaining to environment), providing sewerage system (clean and healthy environment) are all objects for the welfare of the people of the Raebareli Development Authority district; as also these are objects of general public utility. However, since these are the objects of general publicity utility

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

housing, roads, development and maintenance of parks (boost to environment) plantation of trees (again pertaining to environment), providing sewerage system (clean and healthy environment) are all objects for the welfare of the people of the Raebareli Development Authority district; as also these are objects of general public utility. However, since these are the objects of general publicity utility

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

housing, roads, development and maintenance of parks (boost to environment) plantation of trees (again pertaining to environment), providing sewerage system (clean and healthy environment) are all objects for the welfare of the people of the Raebareli Development Authority district; as also these are objects of general public utility. However, since these are the objects of general publicity utility

RAEBARELI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,RAEBARELI vs. CIT-A, NFAC DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

housing, roads, development and maintenance of parks (boost to environment) plantation of trees (again pertaining to environment), providing sewerage system (clean and healthy environment) are all objects for the welfare of the people of the Raebareli Development Authority district; as also these are objects of general public utility. However, since these are the objects of general publicity utility

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

7 of UPUPDA. iii. Submission of master plan/ zonal plan mandatory for approval from State Government - Section 10 of UPUPDA. iv. Land and buildings cannot be used in contravention of plans- Section 16 of UPUPDA. v. Not a single penny can be used for purpose other than its objects - Section 20 UPDA. vi. Ultimate Power/ Control vest in the hands

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

7 of UPUPDA. iii. Submission of master plan/ zonal plan mandatory for approval from State Government - Section 10 of UPUPDA. iv. Land and buildings cannot be used in contravention of plans- Section 16 of UPUPDA. v. Not a single penny can be used for purpose other than its objects - Section 20 UPDA. vi. Ultimate Power/ Control vest in the hands

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

7 of UPUPDA. iii. Submission of master plan/ zonal plan mandatory for approval from State Government - Section 10 of UPUPDA. iv. Land and buildings cannot be used in contravention of plans- Section 16 of UPUPDA. v. Not a single penny can be used for purpose other than its objects - Section 20 UPDA. vi. Ultimate Power/ Control vest in the hands

LUCKNOW EVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,LUCKNOW vs. I.T.O., LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

7 of UPUPDA. iii. Submission of master plan/ zonal plan mandatory for approval from State Government - Section 10 of UPUPDA. iv. Land and buildings cannot be used in contravention of plans- Section 16 of UPUPDA. v. Not a single penny can be used for purpose other than its objects - Section 20 UPDA. vi. Ultimate Power/ Control vest in the hands

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

7 of UPUPDA. iii. Submission of master plan/ zonal plan mandatory for approval from State Government - Section 10 of UPUPDA. iv. Land and buildings cannot be used in contravention of plans- Section 16 of UPUPDA. v. Not a single penny can be used for purpose other than its objects - Section 20 UPDA. vi. Ultimate Power/ Control vest in the hands

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

7) contained the objects of the \nauthority, while section (10) provided for submission of the plan to the state government for \napproval. Section (16) of the Act laid down that once the plan was approved, the lands and \nbuildings would be used only according to the plan. Section 20 concerned the funds of the \nauthority and stated that they could

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

7) contained the objects of the \nauthority, while section (10) provided for submission of the plan to the state government for \napproval. Section (16) of the Act laid down that once the plan was approved, the lands and \nbuildings would be used only according to the plan. Section 20 concerned the funds of the \nauthority and stated that they could

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

7) contained the objects of the \nauthority, while section (10) provided for submission of the plan to the state government for \napproval. Section (16) of the Act laid down that once the plan was approved, the lands and \nbuildings would be used only according to the plan. Section 20 concerned the funds of the \nauthority and stated that they could