VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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

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

SHAMIMUL FATIMA,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 02, GORAKHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3 AY 2013-14 Shamimul Fatima the capital gain has arisen in March 2013. Therefore,he held that assessee should have invested in the property within one year from the date of transaction or should have deposited in the bank under the capital gain scheme. Accordingly, he denied the exemption u/s 54F. 5.The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed said order

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)

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 in holding the cost of acquisition of property to be nil as per provision of the Income Tax Act read with section

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.

Section 50C for computation of the capital gain instead of sale consideration shown by the assessee. Thereafter, assessee filed an application u/s.154 and in the rectification of intimation u/s.143(1) r.w.s. 154 on 19/01/2021, the same was not considered and the original processing order was retained. 3

GORAKH NATH YADAV,VARANASI vs. ITA, WARD - 3(4), VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain before the ld. AO, 3 Shri Gorakh Nath Yadav has not specified any charge as to under which limb he is initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Even in the show-cause notice, the charge has not been specified. Now, it is a well settled law that the ld. AO has to specify the charge

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)

3 Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/s Jai Ambe Agricultural Industries that it is an admitted position that the addition made was in respect to employees contribution of PF / ESI which was deposited late beyond the time prescribed for making payment under the relevant statute. It was submitted that Section 28 does not refer to income as stipulated under Section

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

section 145(2) is also a decision inasmuch as it amounts to un acceptance of the method of accounting on the ground that the income, profits and gains can be properly deduced therefrom. It is therefore open to the AAC to reject the assessee's books of account which have been accepted by the ITO. Hence, the books of account