SARVESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF,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

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

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 02,, VARANASI

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, > [or sub- section (2) of section 73A] or sub-section (1) [or sub-section (3

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 2, VARANASI

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, > [or sub- section (2) of section 73A] or sub-section (1) [or sub-section (3

SUJIT KUMAR AGRAWAL (HUF),VARANASI vs. ACIT, CC, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharay: 2014-15 Sujit Kumar Agrawal (Huf) V Assistant Commissioner Of 72, Jawahar Nagar Extension Bhelupur, . Income Tax, Central Circle, Varanasi-221005, Uttar Pradesh Varanasi Pan-Aaohs5397C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Asim Zafar, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.07.2022 O R D E R

capital gain” (disclosed by the appellant) as bogus, under section 68. 5. Because the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice.” 5. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the original assessment under section 143(3

AJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL (HUF),VARANASI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharay: 2014-15 Ajay Kumar Agrawal (Huf), V Assistant Commissioner Of 72, Jawahar Nagar Extension Bhelupur, . Income Tax, Central Circle, Varanasi-221005, Uttar Pradesh, India Varanasi Pan-Aagha9912D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Asim Zafar, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.07.2022 O R D E R

capital gain” (disclosed by the appellant) as bogus, under section 68. 5. Because the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice.” 2. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the original assessment under section 143(3

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

AWADHESH KUMAR,BALLIA vs. ITO, WARD - 2(4), BALLIA

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2016-17 Awadhesh Kumar, V. Income Tax Officer, Arya Samaj Road, Ballia, Ward-2(4), Ballia, U.P. Uttar Pradesh Pan-Athpk1294N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022 O R D E R

capital gain as made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) is highly unjustified. 3. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs 8,32,507/ wrongly made by the Assessing Officer by invoking provision of section

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

MANISH JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, (TDS), ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Manish Jaiswal, Addl.Cit (Tds), Prop. New Manish Medical V. Allahabad-211001, U.P. Agencies Pashupati Market, Gandhi Park, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan: Akdpj7675D (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain in his return filed by him and there is overall no loss of revenue to the department, so looking to the facts in its entirely, the benefit of section 273B should have been allowed by the CIT(A) while passing the impugned appellate order dated 16.07.2019. 5. BECAUSE the order appealed against is contrary to the facts

MANTRA MAJESTIQUE ASSOCIATES AOP,,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2016-17 Mantra Majestique Associates, V. Pr. Cit Aop Allahabad Flat No.22, S-20/53-1 Sunderam Villa, Varuna Bridge Budha Vihar Colony Varanasi Tan/Pan:Aadam0702H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri V. K. Jindal, C.A. Respondent By: Smt. Abha Kala Chanda, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 08 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 09 2021 O R D E R

3. Please explain capital gains/loss is genuine and has been correctly shown in the return of income. Please justify the same with supporting documents and evidences.” 5. APB:17 is a copy of notice dated 10.8.2017 issued under section 143(2) of the Act by the ITO-1(1), Varanasi, for “Limited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection)”. Therein, the following

MIRZA ARIF BEG,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 1, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh.Vijay Pal Rao & Hon’Ble Sh. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2014-15 Mirza Arif Beg, V. Commissioner Of Income Tax, H. No. 184-B, New Colony, New Range-1, Gorakhpur Beniganj Chowk, Jafra Bazar, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan-Abxpb6421C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Subhash Chand, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.05.2022

capital gains. 3. Because the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal has erred in law of facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,39,900/- on account of Commission. 4. Because the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal has erred in law of facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,65,509/- on Caretaker Expenses. 5. Because in view

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

N.E. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES MULTI STATE PRIMARY COOPARATIVE BANK LTD.,,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 01,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2009-

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Hon’Ble Sh. Ramit Kocharay: 2009-10 Ay: 2013-14 Ay: 2014-15 N.E. Railway Employees Multi State V. Acit, Primary Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Range-1, Gorakhpur Railway Colony, Mohaddipur Road, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan-Aaajn0595P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Anil Kumar Pandey, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.06.2022 O R D E R

3) the bye-laws of which do not permit admission of any other co-operative society as a member: Provided that this sub-clause shall not apply to the admission of a co-operative bank as a member by reason of such co-operative bank subscribing to the share capital of such co-operative society out of funds provided

N.E. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES MULTI STATE PRIMARY CO-OPRATIVE BANK LTD., ,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 01,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2009-

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Hon’Ble Sh. Ramit Kocharay: 2009-10 Ay: 2013-14 Ay: 2014-15 N.E. Railway Employees Multi State V. Acit, Primary Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Range-1, Gorakhpur Railway Colony, Mohaddipur Road, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan-Aaajn0595P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Anil Kumar Pandey, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.06.2022 O R D E R

3) the bye-laws of which do not permit admission of any other co-operative society as a member: Provided that this sub-clause shall not apply to the admission of a co-operative bank as a member by reason of such co-operative bank subscribing to the share capital of such co-operative society out of funds provided