VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain in the scrips of Kailash Auto Finance Ltd and AO should have made the addition. 23. The ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to various notices and queries raised by the AO and various additional information sought by him from time to time on this issue. In support, he has also filed copy of the order

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain in the scrips of Kailash Auto Finance Ltd and AO should have made the addition. 23. The ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to various notices and queries raised by the AO and various additional information sought by him from time to time on this issue. In support, he has also filed copy of the order

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain in the scrips of Kailash Auto Finance Ltd and AO should have made the addition. 23. The ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to various notices and queries raised by the AO and various additional information sought by him from time to time on this issue. In support, he has also filed copy of the order

RADHEY SHYAM,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA No

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2012-13 Shriradheyshyam Income Tax Officer, 308, Sector 16, Avasvikas Colony V. Ward-2(3),Aayakarbhawan, Sikandra,Agra-282007, U.P.. Maqboolalam Road Pan:Aikps7948H Varanasi-221002,U.P.. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Varanasi, U.P.: “1. That the A.O. has failed to issue notice u/s 143(2) which is mandatory requirement as such assessment is illegal and ab initio void. 2. That the addition made on account of CAPITAL GAIN

M/S JAI AMBE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES,VARANASI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(1), VARANASI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2019-2020 M/S Jai Ambe Agricultural The Dcit, Industries, Plot No. 211, V. Circle-2(1), Aayakar Bhawan, M A Marg, Churamanpur, Varanasi- Varanasi-221002,U.P. 221108,U.P. ( The Adi, Cpc, Bengaluru) Pan:Aahfj9428N (Appellant) (Respondent)

additions by relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.(supra) The learned counsel for the assessee has submitted before the Bench that income by way of deeming fiction under section 2(24)(x) cannot be brought to tax under the head ‘Profits and Gains from Business or Profession’ , as Section

MEENA DEVI,BALLIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), BALLIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A) It Was Challenged That Taking The Sale Consideration As Per The Stamp Valuation Authority U/S.50C Is Beyond The Scope Of Section 143(1)(A) & There Is No Such Provision Mentioned In Provision (I) To (Vi) To Make Such An Adjustment. Further, It Was Contended That The Assessee Had Disputed The Valuation U/S.50C Before The Ld. Ao In The Petition For Rectification U/S. 154, However, Same Has Not Been Accepted. However, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Confirmed The Addition On The Ground That The Provision Of Section 50C Is Clear That The Value Has To Be Taken As Per The Stamp Valuation Authority & Therefore, The Ld. Ao Has Rightly Made The Adjustment.

income filed. The return filed on 31/08/2019 was 2 Meena Devi processed u/s. 143(1), wherein adjustment was made by taking the value of sale consideration as per Section 50C for computation of the capital gain instead of sale consideration shown by the assessee. Thereafter, assessee filed an application u/s.154 and in the rectification of intimation u/s.143(1) r.w.s

M/S RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA,AZAMGARH vs. ACIT, RANGE - AZAMGARH, AZAMGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Sarfuddinpur, Near Railway Tax, Range-Azamgarh Station, Azamgarh-276001 Pan-Aakfr2986A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh.Hari N. Singh Bisen, C.A. Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.02.2023

addition of Rs. 448092/- is made in place of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee shall also be entitled to the deduction of interest on capital and remuneration to partners, which shall estimated basis calculated in the book profit. 3.4 Ground no. 4(a) is regarding not considering the interest income

GORAKH NATH YADAV,VARANASI vs. ITA, WARD - 3(4), VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

addition made under the head long term capital gain of Rs.16,10,438/-. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that, firstly while initiating the penalty proceedings ld. AO has not specified the charge under which limb penalty is to be imposed in the assessment order. Even in the show-cause notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s