VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 263,dated 323-326 05.02.2020. 327-338 12. Reply to above show cause notice on 02.03.2020 24. Ld. Counsel further submitted that, nowhere ld. PCIT has commented as to what further enquiries or information should have been sought by the AO, instead stating that AO should have considered the Investigation report and should have made the assessee. Thus

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 263,dated 323-326 05.02.2020. 327-338 12. Reply to above show cause notice on 02.03.2020 24. Ld. Counsel further submitted that, nowhere ld. PCIT has commented as to what further enquiries or information should have been sought by the AO, instead stating that AO should have considered the Investigation report and should have made the assessee. Thus

ANJU JHUNJHUNWALA,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 263,dated 323-326 05.02.2020. 327-338 12. Reply to above show cause notice on 02.03.2020 24. Ld. Counsel further submitted that, nowhere ld. PCIT has commented as to what further enquiries or information should have been sought by the AO, instead stating that AO should have considered the Investigation report and should have made the assessee. Thus

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 263,dated 323-326 05.02.2020. 327-338 12. Reply to above show cause notice on 02.03.2020 24. Ld. Counsel further submitted that, nowhere ld. PCIT has commented as to what further enquiries or information should have been sought by the AO, instead stating that AO should have considered the Investigation report and should have made the assessee. Thus

M/S AVANTIKA INFRAVENTURE (P) LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession" has to be allowed as a deduction in computing the income tax under Section 28 of the Act. 20. In Madhav Prasad Jantia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax U.P. AIR 1979 SC 1291, this Court held that the expression "for the purpose of business" occurring under the provision is wider

M/S AVANTIKA INFRAVENTURE (P) LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession" has to be allowed as a deduction in computing the income tax under Section 28 of the Act. 20. In Madhav Prasad Jantia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax U.P. AIR 1979 SC 1291, this Court held that the expression "for the purpose of business" occurring under the provision is wider

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

27 February, 2001, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that gross interest received on fixed deposit is income in nature and taxable. Thus, the amount of Rs. 24,03,763/- is included in net profit as income from other sources u/s 56 of Income Tax Act 1951, Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate