VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

15. In so far as appeal relating to A.Y.2015-16, exactly similar facts are permeating except that long term capital gain claimed by the assessee in this year was Rs.4,32,07,326/-. Our aforesaid finding given will apply mutatis mutandis in this year also. 16. In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed. ITA No.199/VNS/2019 (AY 2015-16) & ITA No.80

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

15. In so far as appeal relating to A.Y.2015-16, exactly similar facts are permeating except that long term capital gain claimed by the assessee in this year was Rs.4,32,07,326/-. Our aforesaid finding given will apply mutatis mutandis in this year also. 16. In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed. ITA No.199/VNS/2019 (AY 2015-16) & ITA No.80

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

15. In so far as appeal relating to A.Y.2015-16, exactly similar facts are permeating except that long term capital gain claimed by the assessee in this year was Rs.4,32,07,326/-. Our aforesaid finding given will apply mutatis mutandis in this year also. 16. In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed. ITA No.199/VNS/2019 (AY 2015-16) & ITA No.80

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

15,63,010/-. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the CIT(A) and raised various grounds including the assessment of the interest income from FDR by the Assessing Officer as income from other sources instead of business income. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer on this issue while passing the impugned order