VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

8) may not be treated as arranged/fabricated." Case adjourned for 12.07.2017. 9. Detailed Reply/Submission, to query dated 05.07.2017, on 266-319 12.07.2017, with respect to exemption under section 10(38) duly supported by relevant case laws 320-322 10. Copy of Assessment order dated 21.07.2017 under section 143(3). 11. Copy of Show cause notice issued under section 263,dated

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

8) may not be treated as arranged/fabricated." Case adjourned for 12.07.2017. 9. Detailed Reply/Submission, to query dated 05.07.2017, on 266-319 12.07.2017, with respect to exemption under section 10(38) duly supported by relevant case laws 320-322 10. Copy of Assessment order dated 21.07.2017 under section 143(3). 11. Copy of Show cause notice issued under section 263,dated

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

8) may not be treated as arranged/fabricated." Case adjourned for 12.07.2017. 9. Detailed Reply/Submission, to query dated 05.07.2017, on 266-319 12.07.2017, with respect to exemption under section 10(38) duly supported by relevant case laws 320-322 10. Copy of Assessment order dated 21.07.2017 under section 143(3). 11. Copy of Show cause notice issued under section 263,dated

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains with the API within time allowed under provision of the Act. The case of the AO on the other hand is that the investment made for purchase of flat with M/s Arshalan Developers, was cancelled and the amount was refunded by the said developersand refund amount was invested in savings bank account

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

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