VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

49,83,123/- u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act 1961. Apart from dividend income claimed u/s 10 (34) and deduction u/s 80C. Vide various questioners issued from time to time, the assessee was asked to substantial his claim for exemption and deduction and also the confirmations regarding interest income earned by him. In the compliance to above Shri Pawan

ANJU JHUNJHUNWALA,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

49,83,123/- u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act 1961. Apart from dividend income claimed u/s 10 (34) and deduction u/s 80C. Vide various questioners issued from time to time, the assessee was asked to substantial his claim for exemption and deduction and also the confirmations regarding interest income earned by him. In the compliance to above Shri Pawan

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

49,83,123/- u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act 1961. Apart from dividend income claimed u/s 10 (34) and deduction u/s 80C. Vide various questioners issued from time to time, the assessee was asked to substantial his claim for exemption and deduction and also the confirmations regarding interest income earned by him. In the compliance to above Shri Pawan

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 49(1)(iii)(a) of the 1961 Act , but the onus is on the assessee to produce credible evidences to substantiate cost of acquisition by the previous owners as is stipulated u/s 49(1). Thus, in the interest of justice and keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that one more

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