VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain. (iii) Documents in support of Exempt 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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain. (iii) Documents in support of Exempt 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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain. (iii) Documents in support of Exempt 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

SHAMIMUL FATIMA,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 02, GORAKHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 54F of the Act. Since the primary condition was not fulfilled in this case, the question that whether the said amount was kept in CGAS or not, is of no consequence.” 6. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is seen that the assessee had sold agricultural land in March

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)

Capital Gains chargeable to tax, but the AO did not allowed the benefit of cost of acquisition of the said property for the want of evidences. The assessee’s claim was rejected for deduction for cost of acquisition for want of evidences, but the assessee did claimed indexed cost of acquisition in its computation of income filed before

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

section 145(2) is also a decision inasmuch as it amounts to un acceptance of the method of accounting on the ground that the income, profits and gains can be properly deduced therefrom. It is therefore open to the AAC to reject the assessee's books of account which have been accepted by the ITO. Hence, the books of account