VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

30,510/-. The case was selected for compulsory scrutiny on the precise issue of examining long term capital gain on the sale of shares of M/s. Rander Corporation Ltd. The assessment was completed vide order dated 30/12/2016 u/s. 143(3) accepting the return of income and also the long term capital gain. 4. The ld. CIT on examination of records

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

30,510/-. The case was selected for compulsory scrutiny on the precise issue of examining long term capital gain on the sale of shares of M/s. Rander Corporation Ltd. The assessment was completed vide order dated 30/12/2016 u/s. 143(3) accepting the return of income and also the long term capital gain. 4. The ld. CIT on examination of records

ANJU JHUNJHUNWALA,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

30,510/-. The case was selected for compulsory scrutiny on the precise issue of examining long term capital gain on the sale of shares of M/s. Rander Corporation Ltd. The assessment was completed vide order dated 30/12/2016 u/s. 143(3) accepting the return of income and also the long term capital gain. 4. The ld. CIT on examination of records

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

30,177/-. Which was claim as exemption u/s 54B of ₹ 53,50,300/- and ₹ 93,94,781/- u/s 54F respectively. The Ld. AO noted that flat in which investment was claimed was actually booked prior to two years from the date on which capital gain actual arose to the assessee. It was further noted by him that earlier amount advanced

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)

section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an application explaining reasons for delay in filing this appeal late beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) , in which assessee has claimed that the assessee had sent the appeal, by Speed Post on 19th October, 2022 , while I.T.A. No.42/VNS/2022 Assessment Year:2012-13 3 RadheyShyam,Agra

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

30. Proceeding further, the aforesaid return of income was processed by Revenue u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act , and the returned income was accepted by department. The case of the assessee was reopened for reassessment as there Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mousami Choudhury, District Varanasi v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Varanasi were reasons

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

30. Proceeding further, the aforesaid return of income was processed by Revenue u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act , and the returned income was accepted by department. The case of the assessee was reopened for reassessment as there Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mousami Choudhury, District Varanasi v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Varanasi were reasons

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)

30 and 32 at page no. 9 and 10 of the paper book , and submitted that it is the employer’s responsibility to deposit the employer contribution as well as employee contribution with the fund, within the due date. The employer is entitled to recover the employee contribution from the salary of the employee. He referred to provisions of Section

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

30 = Rs. 3,467/- c) Total Disallowance in case of TCDL Rs. 10,134/- Therefore, total disallowance on account of section 36(i)(iii) of the Act, turns out to be Rs. 12,10,134/-. In light of the facts presented in preceding paras, proportionate amount is being disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings

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

30 = Rs. 3,467/- c) Total Disallowance in case of TCDL Rs. 10,134/- Therefore, total disallowance on account of section 36(i)(iii) of the Act, turns out to be Rs. 12,10,134/-. In light of the facts presented in preceding paras, proportionate amount is being disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings