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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. However, ld. PCIT has rejected the submissions and set aside the assessment order holding it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and to pass fresh assessment order. In his entire order, ld. PCIT has made various observations which can be summarized in the following manner:- (i) In so far as assessee’s contention that

VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. However, ld. PCIT has rejected the submissions and set aside the assessment order holding it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and to pass fresh assessment order. In his entire order, ld. PCIT has made various observations which can be summarized in the following manner:- (i) In so far as assessee’s contention that

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. However, ld. PCIT has rejected the submissions and set aside the assessment order holding it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and to pass fresh assessment order. In his entire order, ld. PCIT has made various observations which can be summarized in the following manner:- (i) In so far as assessee’s contention that

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. However, ld. PCIT has rejected the submissions and set aside the assessment order holding it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and to pass fresh assessment order. In his entire order, ld. PCIT has made various observations which can be summarized in the following manner:- (i) In so far as assessee’s contention that

ANJU JHUNJHUNWALA,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. However, ld. PCIT has rejected the submissions and set aside the assessment order holding it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and to pass fresh assessment order. In his entire order, ld. PCIT has made various observations which can be summarized in the following manner:- (i) In so far as assessee’s contention that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 01,, VARANASI vs. M/S RATANDEEP GOLD & DIAMOND PVT. LTD., CHANDAULI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner M/S Ratandeep Gold & Diamond Of Income Tax, V. Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, M A Road, 19, New Mohal, Varanasi-211001, U.P. Near Balika Inter College, Mugalsarai, Chandauli- 232101, U.P. Pan:Aahcr4764Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 02/Vns/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 136/Vns/2020) Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Ratandeep Gold & The Deputy Commissioner Of Diamond Pvt. Ltd. V. Income Tax,Circle-1, M.A. Road 19, New Mohal, Varanasi-211001, U.P. Near Balika Inter College, Mugalsarai, Chandauli- 232101, U.P.

purchase after reconciliation with VAT return , which were entered in books at the time of finalization of accounts . It was also submitted by the assessee that there was some minor difference of Rs. 15,991/- in sales between impounded document as well audited accounts, which were also sales not recorded properly and at the time of finalization and reconciliation with

PRABHAKAR UPADHYAY,AZAMGARH vs. ITO, WARD - 02, AZAMGARH

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2010-11 Prabhakar Upadhyay, V. Income Tax Officer Village-Bijarwa P.O.- Bankat Teh- Ward-2, Azamgarh, U.P. Sagri Distt-Azamgarh, U.P. Pan-Aaupu7174P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Adv Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2022

purchase + 8000 out of salary and wages + 5000.00 out of miscellaneous expenses). Which is bad in law and without proper appreciated of facts and liable to be detected. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer.” 2. As it is evident from the grounds of appeal that the assessee challenged the two additions