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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section S4F requires the assessee to purchase one residential house in India within a period of one year before or two years after the date on which the transfer took place or construct the residential house within a period of three years after the date of transfer. The AO has mainly objected to the fact that the investment made

SHRI GHANSHYAM JAISWAL,AZAMGARH vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE - 01, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ramit Kochar

2,00,000/- were withdrawn in December 2007 and Rs. 4,50,000/- in January ‘ 2008 which was kept at house for purchase of the land at Varanasi. The alleged sum of Rs. 9.00 lacs was given to Shri Naim Ahmad on 06.05.2008 to deliver it at Varanasi.” 3i. The AO observed that In view of the above reply/statement, since

SHRI GHANSHYAM JAISWAL,,AZAMGARH vs. DY. C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ramit Kochar

2,00,000/- were withdrawn in December 2007 and Rs. 4,50,000/- in January ‘ 2008 which was kept at house for purchase of the land at Varanasi. The alleged sum of Rs. 9.00 lacs was given to Shri Naim Ahmad on 06.05.2008 to deliver it at Varanasi.” 3i. The AO observed that In view of the above reply/statement, since

SHRI GHANSHYAM JAISWAL,AZAMGARH vs. DY.CIT, CIRCLE - 1,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ramit Kochar

2,00,000/- were withdrawn in December 2007 and Rs. 4,50,000/- in January ‘ 2008 which was kept at house for purchase of the land at Varanasi. The alleged sum of Rs. 9.00 lacs was given to Shri Naim Ahmad on 06.05.2008 to deliver it at Varanasi.” 3i. The AO observed that In view of the above reply/statement, since

SHRI GHANSHYAM JAISWAL,AZAMGARH vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ramit Kochar

2,00,000/- were withdrawn in December 2007 and Rs. 4,50,000/- in January ‘ 2008 which was kept at house for purchase of the land at Varanasi. The alleged sum of Rs. 9.00 lacs was given to Shri Naim Ahmad on 06.05.2008 to deliver it at Varanasi.” 3i. The AO observed that In view of the above reply/statement, since

YOGESH KUMAR VERMA,BALLIA vs. DC/ACIT, CC, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year:2018-19 Pramod Kumar V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Amypk5524D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2018-19 Kanchan Sarraf V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Ahnpd1118Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2018-19 Yogesh Kumar Verma V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Amypk5523E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: S/Shri V.K. Jindal & Ashish Jindal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Robin Chaudhary, Cit Date Of Hearing: 27 09 2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 10 2023 O R D E R

2. In all the appeals, one common issue is involved, i.e., the addition made under section 69B of the I.T. Act on the basis of difference between the investment shown by the assessee in the books of account and the estimate made by the DVO under section 142A of the I.T. Act. The additions made in all the three cases

PRAMOD KUMAR,BALLIA vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year:2018-19 Pramod Kumar V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Amypk5524D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2018-19 Kanchan Sarraf V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Ahnpd1118Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2018-19 Yogesh Kumar Verma V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Amypk5523E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: S/Shri V.K. Jindal & Ashish Jindal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Robin Chaudhary, Cit Date Of Hearing: 27 09 2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 10 2023 O R D E R

2. In all the appeals, one common issue is involved, i.e., the addition made under section 69B of the I.T. Act on the basis of difference between the investment shown by the assessee in the books of account and the estimate made by the DVO under section 142A of the I.T. Act. The additions made in all the three cases

KANCHAN SARRAF,BALLIA vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year:2018-19 Pramod Kumar V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Amypk5524D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2018-19 Kanchan Sarraf V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Ahnpd1118Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2018-19 Yogesh Kumar Verma V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Amypk5523E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: S/Shri V.K. Jindal & Ashish Jindal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Robin Chaudhary, Cit Date Of Hearing: 27 09 2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 10 2023 O R D E R

2. In all the appeals, one common issue is involved, i.e., the addition made under section 69B of the I.T. Act on the basis of difference between the investment shown by the assessee in the books of account and the estimate made by the DVO under section 142A of the I.T. Act. The additions made in all the three cases

ACIT, CC, VARANASI vs. M/S VATIKA NIRMAN PVT. LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

2. The background facts relating to the cases are stated in brief. Both the assessees herein belong to the same group and both of them are engaged in real estate business. The Revenue carried out search and seizure operations under section 132 of the Act in the case of M/s. Tulsiani Construction and Developers Pvt. Limited, its sister concerns, residential

ACIT, CC,, VARANASI vs. M/S D.S. INFRAHEIGHTS PVT. LTD.,, VARANASI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

2. The background facts relating to the cases are stated in brief. Both the assessees herein belong to the same group and both of them are engaged in real estate business. The Revenue carried out search and seizure operations under section 132 of the Act in the case of M/s. Tulsiani Construction and Developers Pvt. Limited, its sister concerns, residential