VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 263, firstly, has to specifically pinpoint what is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in the order and secondly, what was the enquiry which AO has not done. He has to specify where AO has lacked in his enquiry and it should not be a mere bald statement that AO has not done any enquiry

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 263, firstly, has to specifically pinpoint what is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in the order and secondly, what was the enquiry which AO has not done. He has to specify where AO has lacked in his enquiry and it should not be a mere bald statement that AO has not done any enquiry

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 263, firstly, has to specifically pinpoint what is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in the order and secondly, what was the enquiry which AO has not done. He has to specify where AO has lacked in his enquiry and it should not be a mere bald statement that AO has not done any enquiry

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)

16, AvasVikas Colony v. Ward-2(3),AayakarBhawan, Sikandra,Agra-282007, U.P.. MaqboolAlam Road PAN:AIKPS7948H Varanasi-221002,U.P.. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing 06/02/2023 Date of pronouncement 06/02/2023 O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR:A.M. This appeal in I.T.A. No.42/VNS/2022 for assessment year

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

16 to 27 of the paper book. The CIT(A) for the assessment year 2007-08 accepted the income on FDR pledged with the department as business income and held that the same shall be included in the book profit of the assessee and consequently the issue was decided in favour of the assessee. Thus, the learned AR has submitted