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

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

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

Bench: Ramit Kochar

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 the assessee has made withdrawals from his cash credit account

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

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

Bench: Ramit Kochar

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 the assessee has made withdrawals from his cash credit account

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

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 the assessee has made withdrawals from his cash credit account

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

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

Bench: Ramit Kochar

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 the assessee has made withdrawals from his cash credit account

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 01,, VARANASI vs. SHRI GANESH PRASAD,, VARANASI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income - Mr. Ganesh Prasad, Tax, V. S-6/108, Golghar Katchhari, Circle-1, Aayakarbhawan, Varanasi-221002, U.P. Maqboolalam Road Varanasi-221002, U.P.

50,000/- - Rs. 39,21,453/-) is the unaccounted money brought into books of account of the assessee as the credit entry which remains unexplained regarding nature and source , and hence is to be taxed as per section 69A of the Act read with Section 115BBE of the 1961 Act Thus, the AO made the addition to the income

M/S. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , VARANASI

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

sections of the society in pursuance of the Constitution of India under which every State Government is responsible for Town Planning and for the welfare of the public. Alongwith with affordable houses public utilities are developed as per the plan of the State Government. In recent times houses are being provided to economically weaker section of the society under various

M/S. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), VARANASI

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

sections of the society in pursuance of the Constitution of India under which every State Government is responsible for Town Planning and for the welfare of the public. Alongwith with affordable houses public utilities are developed as per the plan of the State Government. In recent times houses are being provided to economically weaker section of the society under various

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASEE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

sections of the society in pursuance of the Constitution of India under which every State Government is responsible for Town Planning and for the welfare of the public. Alongwith with affordable houses public utilities are developed as per the plan of the State Government. In recent times houses are being provided to economically weaker section of the society under various

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASEE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

sections of the society in pursuance of the Constitution of India under which every State Government is responsible for Town Planning and for the welfare of the public. Alongwith with affordable houses public utilities are developed as per the plan of the State Government. In recent times houses are being provided to economically weaker section of the society under various

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)

section 153C of the Act. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the shareholding pattern of both the assessee companies herein. He found that the shareholders of both the companies were M/s. Tulsiani Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and KBG Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., each of them holding 50% of shares. The Assessing Officer further noticed that

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)

section 153C of the Act. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer examined the shareholding pattern of both the assessee companies herein. He found that the shareholders of both the companies were M/s. Tulsiani Construction and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and KBG Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., each of them holding 50% of shares. The Assessing Officer further noticed that