VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

4. Notice under section 142(1) dated 28.06.2017 179 5. - Reply to above referred notice dated 28.06.2017, 180-181 submitted on 29.06.2017 , along with Copies of : (i) Income & Expenditure Account of appellant HUF 182 as on 31.03.2015 183 (ii) Capital Account of HUF as on 31.03.2015 184 (iii) Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2015 6. 185 Additional information sought

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

4. Notice under section 142(1) dated 28.06.2017 179 5. - Reply to above referred notice dated 28.06.2017, 180-181 submitted on 29.06.2017 , along with Copies of : (i) Income & Expenditure Account of appellant HUF 182 as on 31.03.2015 183 (ii) Capital Account of HUF as on 31.03.2015 184 (iii) Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2015 6. 185 Additional information sought

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

4. Notice under section 142(1) dated 28.06.2017 179 5. - Reply to above referred notice dated 28.06.2017, 180-181 submitted on 29.06.2017 , along with Copies of : (i) Income & Expenditure Account of appellant HUF 182 as on 31.03.2015 183 (ii) Capital Account of HUF as on 31.03.2015 184 (iii) Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2015 6. 185 Additional information sought

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

4. According to the AO, the assessee should have purchased the new asset before one year of date of transaction or should have invested within two years from the date of transaction of sale when the capital gain has arisen. The assessee has claimed Rs. 37 lacs invested in flat purchase from API in the year

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.

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. Before the ld. CIT (A) it was challenged that taking the sale consideration as per the stamp valuation authority

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)

Capital gains so and so forth. The assessee in the instant case is engaged in the business and has employed employees/ workers to whom salaries/wages are paid who are rendering their services in connection with the business activities of the assessee. The income earned by the assessee is from business which falls under the head ‘Profits and Gains of Business

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

4. The assessee is aggrieved by penalty of Rs.3,50,162/- on account of addition made under the head long term capital gain of Rs.16,10,438/-. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that, firstly while initiating the penalty proceedings ld. AO has not specified the charge under which limb penalty is to be imposed

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