ANJU JHUNJHUNWALA,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

13. It is a trite law that ld. PCIT while exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263, firstly, has to specifically pinpoint what is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in the order and secondly, what was the enquiry which AO has not done. He has to specify where AO has lacked in his enquiry and it should

SARVESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

13. It is a trite law that ld. PCIT while exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263, firstly, has to specifically pinpoint what is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in the order and secondly, what was the enquiry which AO has not done. He has to specify where AO has lacked in his enquiry and it should

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

13. It is a trite law that ld. PCIT while exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263, firstly, has to specifically pinpoint what is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in the order and secondly, what was the enquiry which AO has not done. He has to specify where AO has lacked in his enquiry and it should

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

13. It is a trite law that ld. PCIT while exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263, firstly, has to specifically pinpoint what is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in the order and secondly, what was the enquiry which AO has not done. He has to specify where AO has lacked in his enquiry and it should

VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

13. It is a trite law that ld. PCIT while exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263, firstly, has to specifically pinpoint what is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in the order and secondly, what was the enquiry which AO has not done. He has to specify where AO has lacked in his enquiry and it should

RISHIKESH SHUKLA,SINGRAULI vs. ITO, WARD - III (1), MIRZAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year:2009-10 Shri Rishikesh Shukla, Income Tax Officer, S/O Shri K. P. Shukla, V. Ward-Iii(1), Sharma Colony, Mirzapur,U.P.. Waidhan,Singrauli-486886, Madhya Pradesh . Pan:Bcmps8094M (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone the delay in filing this appeal late by the assessee beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act, and proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merit in accordance with law. 4. The brief facts of the case are that as per the database of the Department, the assessee has deposited cash in his savings bank account

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (1),, VARANASI vs. PROMINENT DATAMATICS MARKETING PVT. LTD., , VARANASI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condoning the delay citing the reasons for the delay in filing before the Delhi benches, if so advised. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 9. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.09.2023. (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 26th September, 2023. 8. In view of the above discussion, I find that after the judgement

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 02 (04),, BALLIA vs. PREM SHANKAR VERMA,, BALLIA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year:2017-18 The Income Tax Officer V. Shri Prem Shankar Verma Ward – 02(04) Sripur. Takarsan Ballia Ballia Tan/Pan:Adopv7563Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.03/Vns/2021 [Arising Out Of Ita No.134/Vns/134] Assessment Year:2017-18 Shri Prem Shankar Verma V. The Income Tax Officer Sripur. Takarsan Ward – 02(04) Ballia Ballia Tan/Pan:Adopv7563Q (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has filed cross objection in support of the order of the ld. CIT(A). :-2-: 2. There is a delay of 14 days in filing of the cross objection. As per the application for condonation of delay, supported by the Medical Certificate of Dr. J. P. Shukla of Sharda

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 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an application explaining reasons for delay in filing this appeal late beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) , in which assessee has claimed that the assessee had sent the appeal, by Speed Post on 19th October, 2022 , while I.T.A. No.42/VNS/2022 Assessment Year:2012-13 3 RadheyShyam,Agra