VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain entries and he has given list of companies who were involved. Thirdly, he has commented upon abnormal raise of prices of M/s. Rander Corporation Ltd. 9. In all these cases, nowhere the ld. PCIT has pointed out as to what specific inquiry should have been done by the AO and from whom which he has not done, instead

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain entries and he has given list of companies who were involved. Thirdly, he has commented upon abnormal raise of prices of M/s. Rander Corporation Ltd. 9. In all these cases, nowhere the ld. PCIT has pointed out as to what specific inquiry should have been done by the AO and from whom which he has not done, instead

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain entries and he has given list of companies who were involved. Thirdly, he has commented upon abnormal raise of prices of M/s. Rander Corporation Ltd. 9. In all these cases, nowhere the ld. PCIT has pointed out as to what specific inquiry should have been done by the AO and from whom which he has not done, instead

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 GAIN is wholly wrong and against the facts of the case. 3. That in any case the authorities below have not allowed the proper opportunity to explain the case. 4. That the authorities below have erred in holding the cost of acquisition of property to be nil as per provision of the Income Tax Act read with section