SARVESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF,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

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

AWADHESH KUMAR,BALLIA vs. ITO, WARD - 2(4), BALLIA

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2016-17 Awadhesh Kumar, V. Income Tax Officer, Arya Samaj Road, Ballia, Ward-2(4), Ballia, U.P. Uttar Pradesh Pan-Athpk1294N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022 O R D E R

Income Tax Act is bad both on the facts and in law. 2. That in any view of the matter the addition of Rs. 8,32,507/ was on account of short term capital gain

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

MIRZA ARIF BEG,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 1, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh.Vijay Pal Rao & Hon’Ble Sh. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2014-15 Mirza Arif Beg, V. Commissioner Of Income Tax, H. No. 184-B, New Colony, New Range-1, Gorakhpur Beniganj Chowk, Jafra Bazar, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan-Abxpb6421C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Subhash Chand, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.05.2022

Income Tax Appeal has erred in law of facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 20,95,910/- on account of long term capital gains

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

MANTRA MAJESTIQUE ASSOCIATES AOP,,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2016-17 Mantra Majestique Associates, V. Pr. Cit Aop Allahabad Flat No.22, S-20/53-1 Sunderam Villa, Varuna Bridge Budha Vihar Colony Varanasi Tan/Pan:Aadam0702H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri V. K. Jindal, C.A. Respondent By: Smt. Abha Kala Chanda, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 08 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 09 2021 O R D E R

income.” 6. Thus, evidently, the assessee is correct in contending that the case was selected for Limited Scrutiny on the issue of verification of capital gains/loss. In the written submission (APB:18A – 18C) filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, the assessee duly explained the issue of capital gains, demonstrating that the query regarding capital gain on sale

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

SUJIT KUMAR AGRAWAL (HUF),VARANASI vs. ACIT, CC, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharay: 2014-15 Sujit Kumar Agrawal (Huf) V Assistant Commissioner Of 72, Jawahar Nagar Extension Bhelupur, . Income Tax, Central Circle, Varanasi-221005, Uttar Pradesh Varanasi Pan-Aaohs5397C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Asim Zafar, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.07.2022 O R D E R

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Varanasi under section 143(3) of the Act] in relation to an issue relating to addition of Rs. 61,42,646/- by treating “long term capital gain

AJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL (HUF),VARANASI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharay: 2014-15 Ajay Kumar Agrawal (Huf), V Assistant Commissioner Of 72, Jawahar Nagar Extension Bhelupur, . Income Tax, Central Circle, Varanasi-221005, Uttar Pradesh, India Varanasi Pan-Aagha9912D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Asim Zafar, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.07.2022 O R D E R

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Varanasi under section 143(3) of the Act] in relation to an issue relating to addition of Rs. 61,47,400 /- by treating “long term capital gain

GIRISH KUMAR KESHARI,VARANASI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 01, VARANASI

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2013-14 Sh. Girish Kumar Keshari, V. Dcit, Prop. M/S G.S. Marketing B-37/171-A, Circle-1, Varanasi Ganesh Gali, Birdopur, Mahmoorganj, Varanasi, U.P. Pan-Adapk7314C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Arvind Shukla & Sh. Ashish Zafar, Advs Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2022

addition.” 2. The assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 01.10.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 10,28,170/-. During the scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has shown short term capital gain

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

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 02,, VARANASI

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

addition . We order accordingly. One more legal ground is raised by the assessee, that the reassessment was framed by the AO without issuing notice u/s 143(2). The assessee never filed any return of income in pursuance to notice issued by the AO u/s 148, and hence the AO rightly invoked provisions of Section 144 and framed best judgment assessment

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 2, VARANASI

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

addition . We order accordingly. One more legal ground is raised by the assessee, that the reassessment was framed by the AO without issuing notice u/s 143(2). The assessee never filed any return of income in pursuance to notice issued by the AO u/s 148, and hence the AO rightly invoked provisions of Section 144 and framed best judgment assessment

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

M/S AVANTIKA INFRAVENTURE (P) LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital borrowed for the purpose of business or profession is to be allowed as a deduction in computing taxable income. The expression "for purposes of business or profession" occurring in Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of earning income, profits or gains". Accordingly, expenditure voluntarily incurred on the test