VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. However, ld. PCIT has rejected the submissions and set aside the assessment order holding it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and to pass fresh assessment order. In his entire order, ld. PCIT has made various observations which can be summarized in the following manner:- (i) In so far as assessee’s contention that

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. However, ld. PCIT has rejected the submissions and set aside the assessment order holding it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and to pass fresh assessment order. In his entire order, ld. PCIT has made various observations which can be summarized in the following manner:- (i) In so far as assessee’s contention that

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. However, ld. PCIT has rejected the submissions and set aside the assessment order holding it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and to pass fresh assessment order. In his entire order, ld. PCIT has made various observations which can be summarized in the following manner:- (i) In so far as assessee’s contention that

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

D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.05.2019 of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2013-14.Theassessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. Because on the fact and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 24,03,763/- as Interest