VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain in the scrips of Kailash Auto Finance Ltd and AO should have made the addition. 23. The ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to various notices and queries raised by the AO and various additional information sought by him from time to time on this issue. In support, he has also filed copy of the order

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain in the scrips of Kailash Auto Finance Ltd and AO should have made the addition. 23. The ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to various notices and queries raised by the AO and various additional information sought by him from time to time on this issue. In support, he has also filed copy of the order

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain in the scrips of Kailash Auto Finance Ltd and AO should have made the addition. 23. The ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to various notices and queries raised by the AO and various additional information sought by him from time to time on this issue. In support, he has also filed copy of the order

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 54F of the Act. Since the primary condition was not fulfilled in this case, the question that whether the said amount was kept in CGAS or not, is of no consequence.” 6. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is seen that the assessee had sold agricultural land in March

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.

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 u/s.50C

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)

Gains from Business or Profession’. There is no dispute that Section 2(24)(x) refers to any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contribution to any provident fund or superannuation fund or any fund set up under the provisions of the 5 Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/s Jai Ambe Agricultural Industries Employees’ State insurance

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. From the perusal of the assessment order which has been passed in pursuance of order of the ITAT, setting aside the quantum issue of determination of 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

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