VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(3) accepting the return of income and also the long term capital gain. 4. The ld. CIT on examination of records was of the view that order passed by the AO was erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, he issued detailed show-cause notice to the assessee which has been incorporated

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(3) accepting the return of income and also the long term capital gain. 4. The ld. CIT on examination of records was of the view that order passed by the AO was erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, he issued detailed show-cause notice to the assessee which has been incorporated

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(3) accepting the return of income and also the long term capital gain. 4. The ld. CIT on examination of records was of the view that order passed by the AO was erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, he issued detailed show-cause notice to the assessee which has been incorporated

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)

143(1) by disallowing the deduction under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of Rs. 1,28,680/- towards delayed deposit with relevant fund of employee contribution towards PF / ESI collected by the assessee from employees which stood deposited late beyond the time provided under the relevant statute. It is an admitted position that

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.

capital gain in the return of 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

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)

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 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

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

143(2) was issued by the Assessing Officer on 12.09.2014. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act and then estimated the business income by excluding the interest income on FDR which was separately assessed as income from other sources. Accordingly, the net profit was estimated