SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

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

undisclosed income at the time of initiation of search, but the actual exercise of that power commences only after the search is over, does not impinge upon the controversy at hand. The present case does not involve any search by the Income-tax Department. Amandeep Singh's case (supra) was not cited before the Division Bench of the Tribunal

SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

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

undisclosed income at the time of initiation of search, but the actual exercise of that power commences only after the search is over, does not impinge upon the controversy at hand. The present case does not involve any search by the Income-tax Department. Amandeep Singh's case (supra) was not cited before the Division Bench of the Tribunal

SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

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

undisclosed income at the time of initiation of search, but the actual exercise of that power commences only after the search is over, does not impinge upon the controversy at hand. The present case does not involve any search by the Income-tax Department. Amandeep Singh's case (supra) was not cited before the Division Bench of the Tribunal

SHRI VINAY PRATAP SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

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

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

undisclosed income at the time of initiation of search, but the actual exercise of that power commences only after the search is over, does not impinge upon the controversy at hand. The present case does not involve any search by the Income-tax Department. Amandeep Singh's case (supra) was not cited before the Division Bench of the Tribunal

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

Income-tax Officer v. Ram Nath Aggarwal [2004] 2 SOT 471 (ITAT ASR. Bench) (SMC) that the valuation of an asset is not an exact science. Mathematical calculation 'is not possible. The valuation of the immovable property is also estimated on the basis of the facts and circumstances. Therefore, it could not be said that whatever the Valuation Officer

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

Income-tax Officer v. Ram Nath Aggarwal [2004] 2 SOT 471 (ITAT ASR. Bench) (SMC) that the valuation of an asset is not an exact science. Mathematical calculation 'is not possible. The valuation of the immovable property is also estimated on the basis of the facts and circumstances. Therefore, it could not be said that whatever the Valuation Officer

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

Income-tax Officer v. Ram Nath Aggarwal [2004] 2 SOT 471 (ITAT ASR. Bench) (SMC) that the valuation of an asset is not an exact science. Mathematical calculation 'is not possible. The valuation of the immovable property is also estimated on the basis of the facts and circumstances. Therefore, it could not be said that whatever the Valuation Officer

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

Income-tax Officer v. Ram Nath Aggarwal [2004] 2 SOT 471 (ITAT ASR. Bench) (SMC) that the valuation of an asset is not an exact science. Mathematical calculation 'is not possible. The valuation of the immovable property is also estimated on the basis of the facts and circumstances. Therefore, it could not be said that whatever the Valuation Officer

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

Income-tax Officer v. Ram Nath Aggarwal [2004] 2 SOT 471 (ITAT ASR. Bench) (SMC) that the valuation of an asset is not an exact science. Mathematical calculation 'is not possible. The valuation of the immovable property is also estimated on the basis of the facts and circumstances. Therefore, it could not be said that whatever the Valuation Officer

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

Income-tax Officer v. Ram Nath Aggarwal [2004] 2 SOT 471 (ITAT ASR. Bench) (SMC) that the valuation of an asset is not an exact science. Mathematical calculation 'is not possible. The valuation of the immovable property is also estimated on the basis of the facts and circumstances. Therefore, it could not be said that whatever the Valuation Officer

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

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

Income-tax Officer v. Ram Nath Aggarwal [2004] 2 SOT 471 (ITAT ASR. Bench) (SMC) that the valuation of an asset is not an exact science. Mathematical calculation 'is not possible. The valuation of the immovable property is also estimated on the basis of the facts and circumstances. Therefore, it could not be said that whatever the Valuation Officer

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

Income-tax, Allahabad v. Target Construction Co. Ltd and the fact that depreciation of Rs. 14,99,267/- has already been disallowed, the net profit rate of 11% applied by the Assessing Officer is too high when appellant has shown comparatively higher profit margin of 10.13% and 9.68% in subsequent years

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

Income-tax, Allahabad v. Target Construction Co. Ltd and the fact that depreciation of Rs. 14,99,267/- has already been disallowed, the net profit rate of 11% applied by the Assessing Officer is too high when appellant has shown comparatively higher profit margin of 10.13% and 9.68% in subsequent years

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

Income-tax, Allahabad v. Target Construction Co. Ltd and the fact that depreciation of Rs. 14,99,267/- has already been disallowed, the net profit rate of 11% applied by the Assessing Officer is too high when appellant has shown comparatively higher profit margin of 10.13% and 9.68% in subsequent years

KASHI NATH SETH SARRAF PRIVATE LIMITED,HARDOI vs. ACIT, SITAPUR, SITAPUR

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

undisclosed income of assessee u/s 68 .\n\n1.)\nChandigarh bench ITAT Smt. Charu Aggarwal Vs. CIT\n140 taxmann.com 588[held in para 10.13 PB 135]\n\n10.13 In the present case also the cash deposited post demonetization by\nthe assessee was out of the cash sales which had been accepted by\nthe Sales Tax/VAT Department and not doubted

PRADEEP KUMAR,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-1, LUCKNOW

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

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Pradeep Kumar V. The Acit-1 A-1/46, Vikas Khand Lucknow Gomti Nagar Lucknow Pan:Ablpk8392B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Prakash Agrawal, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10 07 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04 09 2024 O R D E R

house property at Rs.2,52,000/-, income from other sources (being interest) at Rs.17,20,261/- and long term capital gain at Rs.5,90,244/-. On the total turnover of Rs.31,47,84,794/-, assessee declared gross profit at Rs.1,97,08,882/- and net profit at Rs.1,60,82,364/-. The ITA No.198/LKW/2024 Page 3 of 13 Assessing Officer

SHRI NARESH KUMAR YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(5), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Naresh Kumar Yadav V. Ito-1(5) Vill. & Post Madiyaon Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aebpy8040D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Prashant Kumar Verma, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 07 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Lucknow, Dated 11.10.2019, For Assessment Year 2011- 12, Raising The Following Original Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because, The Whole Assessment Order Impugned In The Present Appeal Stands Wholly Vitiated As There Can Be No Reason To Believe That Income Has Escaped Assessment U/S 147/144 On The Ground Of Mere Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Amounting To Rs.12,98,000/- Therefore, The Entire Assessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Held As Nullity & Without Jurisdiction. 2. Because, The Assessment Order Impugned In The Present Appeal Stands Wholly Vitiated As There Can Be No Reason To Believe On The Basis Of Air Information That Income Has Escaped Assessment U/S 147/144 On The Ground Of Mere Cash Deposits In Bank Account Amounting Rs.12,98,000/-. Therefore, The Entire Assessment Proceedings Are Liable To Be Held As Nullity & Without Jurisdiction.

undisclosed income and overlooks the fact that the source of the deposit need not necessarily be the income of the assessee, the reassessment proceedings are required to be set aside and quashed. 7. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. has placed strong reliance on the orders of the Authorities below. The ld. D.R., placing reliance on the judgment

URMILA MISHRA,KANPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(5), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Urmila Mishra V. The Income Tax Officer E-1/186, Kda Colony Ward 1(1)(5) Dheli Sujanpur, Kanpur Kanpur Tan/Pan:Bndpm1858F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 04 2025 O R D E R

house property at Rs.4,91,628/- and income from other sources at Rs.26,933/-. After initially processing of the return under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’), the case was selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS for the reason of – (1) large investment in property and (2) large value of cash deposits during