VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

50,38,904/-during FY 2014- 15 and thus earned capital gain of Rs. 48,38,904. This means that the price of the shares of the company M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. increased by 2419%. This increase of about 2400% is unusual and does not happen even in case of the most reputed and promising companies The A.O. should

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

50,38,904/-during FY 2014- 15 and thus earned capital gain of Rs. 48,38,904. This means that the price of the shares of the company M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. increased by 2419%. This increase of about 2400% is unusual and does not happen even in case of the most reputed and promising companies The A.O. should

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

50,38,904/-during FY 2014- 15 and thus earned capital gain of Rs. 48,38,904. This means that the price of the shares of the company M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. increased by 2419%. This increase of about 2400% is unusual and does not happen even in case of the most reputed and promising companies The A.O. should

ANJU JHUNJHUNWALA,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

50,38,904/-during FY 2014- 15 and thus earned capital gain of Rs. 48,38,904. This means that the price of the shares of the company M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. increased by 2419%. This increase of about 2400% is unusual and does not happen even in case of the most reputed and promising companies The A.O. should

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 to M/s Arslandevelopers was refunded and same was deposited

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 on the basis of the full value consideration in terms of section 50C of the Income Tax Act by adopting the stamp duty valuation. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) but could not succeed. 4. Before the Tribunal, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee purchased 0.0211 hectare

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)

50%). The total sale consideration being Rs. 43,00,000/- while the Circle Rate was Rs. 65,61,000/- . The Assessing Officer adopted Circle rate as the deemed full value of consideration u/s 50C while computing Long Term Capital Gains chargeable to tax, but the AO did not allowed the benefit of cost of acquisition of the said property

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 in the assessment order. Even in the show-cause

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