VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

income under section 10(38): a. Copy of Purchase Bill from Sanskrit! Vincom Pvt. Ltd., 196 for purchase of shares in Panchshul Marketing Ltd. b. Copy of Balance sheets as on 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014, 197-200 alongwith Summary of Investments held (wherein the shares bought, had duly been reflected). c. Copy of Bank statement showing payment of Rs.2

GOPI KRISHNA VINOD KUMAR HUF,GORAKHPUR vs. PCIT,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

income under section 10(38): a. Copy of Purchase Bill from Sanskrit! Vincom Pvt. Ltd., 196 for purchase of shares in Panchshul Marketing Ltd. b. Copy of Balance sheets as on 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014, 197-200 alongwith Summary of Investments held (wherein the shares bought, had duly been reflected). c. Copy of Bank statement showing payment of Rs.2

ANJU JHUNJHUNWALA,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

income under section 10(38): a. Copy of Purchase Bill from Sanskrit! Vincom Pvt. Ltd., 196 for purchase of shares in Panchshul Marketing Ltd. b. Copy of Balance sheets as on 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014, 197-200 alongwith Summary of Investments held (wherein the shares bought, had duly been reflected). c. Copy of Bank statement showing payment of Rs.2

VINOD KUMAR SARAF HUF,GORAKHPUR vs. PCIT,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

income under section 10(38): a. Copy of Purchase Bill from Sanskrit! Vincom Pvt. Ltd., 196 for purchase of shares in Panchshul Marketing Ltd. b. Copy of Balance sheets as on 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014, 197-200 alongwith Summary of Investments held (wherein the shares bought, had duly been reflected). c. Copy of Bank statement showing payment of Rs.2

SARVESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

income under section 10(38): a. Copy of Purchase Bill from Sanskrit! Vincom Pvt. Ltd., 196 for purchase of shares in Panchshul Marketing Ltd. b. Copy of Balance sheets as on 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014, 197-200 alongwith Summary of Investments held (wherein the shares bought, had duly been reflected). c. Copy of Bank statement showing payment of Rs.2

ASHUTOSH MISHRA,LUCKNOW vs. CIT(A), VARANASAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ashutosh Mishra, Vs Assessing Officer, 3/144, Vinay Khand, Circle-3, Gomti Nagar, Varanasi. Lucknow – 226 010. Pan: Adgpm1827Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2023 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, Am: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 05.02.2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Varanasi & It Relates To Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Decision Of The Ld.Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.90 Lakhs Made By The Ao.

purchase of one property. Before the AO, the assessee appeared once and sought adjournment . Thereafter, the assessee did not appear and was seeking adjournment from time to time. The assessee also did not furnish any explanation with regard to the above-said alleged payment of Rs.90 lakhs. Hence, the AO completed the assessment to the best of his judgement