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

11(1) of the 1961 Act and observed that it is subject to provisions of Section 60 to 63 of the 1961 Act. The AO observed that Section 60 to 63 of the 1961 Act deals with revocable transfer of assets, and for creation of valid trust, transfer of the assets for charitable purposes should be irrevocable, which

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

11(1) of the 1961 Act and observed that it is subject to provisions of Section 60 to 63 of the 1961 Act. The AO observed that Section 60 to 63 of the 1961 Act deals with revocable transfer of assets, and for creation of valid trust, transfer of the assets for charitable purposes should be irrevocable, which

KAHM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,VARANASI vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year:2018-19 M/S Kahm Properties Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dc/Acit B-21/192, Kamaccha Central Circle Varanasai Varanasi Tan/Pan:Aacck7739F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri V. K. Jindal Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26 09 2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 09 2023

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and :-8-: (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. (7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum equal

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

11. Another very important fact is that, nowhere it has been brought on record that SEBI has ever banned the trading of the shares or has found anything against M/s. Rander Corporation Ltd. or any action has been taken for any kind of alleged manipulation of prices in stock exchange. If the SEBI would have found any malpractice

ANJU JHUNJHUNWALA,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

11. Another very important fact is that, nowhere it has been brought on record that SEBI has ever banned the trading of the shares or has found anything against M/s. Rander Corporation Ltd. or any action has been taken for any kind of alleged manipulation of prices in stock exchange. If the SEBI would have found any malpractice

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

11. Another very important fact is that, nowhere it has been brought on record that SEBI has ever banned the trading of the shares or has found anything against M/s. Rander Corporation Ltd. or any action has been taken for any kind of alleged manipulation of prices in stock exchange. If the SEBI would have found any malpractice

VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

11. Another very important fact is that, nowhere it has been brought on record that SEBI has ever banned the trading of the shares or has found anything against M/s. Rander Corporation Ltd. or any action has been taken for any kind of alleged manipulation of prices in stock exchange. If the SEBI would have found any malpractice

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

11. Another very important fact is that, nowhere it has been brought on record that SEBI has ever banned the trading of the shares or has found anything against M/s. Rander Corporation Ltd. or any action has been taken for any kind of alleged manipulation of prices in stock exchange. If the SEBI would have found any malpractice

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 01,, VARANASI vs. M/S RATANDEEP GOLD & DIAMOND PVT. LTD., CHANDAULI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner M/S Ratandeep Gold & Diamond Of Income Tax, V. Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, M A Road, 19, New Mohal, Varanasi-211001, U.P. Near Balika Inter College, Mugalsarai, Chandauli- 232101, U.P. Pan:Aahcr4764Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 02/Vns/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 136/Vns/2020) Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Ratandeep Gold & The Deputy Commissioner Of Diamond Pvt. Ltd. V. Income Tax,Circle-1, M.A. Road 19, New Mohal, Varanasi-211001, U.P. Near Balika Inter College, Mugalsarai, Chandauli- 232101, U.P.

Section 292C, there will be presumption that the contents of this documents found during survey are true and the documents belong to the assessee. This presumption is rebuttable, for which the assessee has to bring on record cogent/credible evidences to rebut the said presumption. There is a difference of Rs. 11,43,944/- in expenses as are recorded

INDRA NARAYAN TRIPATHI,GORAKHPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 02,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

price. 10. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record. We have observed that the assessee is an individual who is engaged in wholesale trading of Galla items i.e., Paddy, Rice and Wheat etc., as a 10 ITA.No.05/VNS/2020 Sri Indra Narayan Tripathi, Gorakhpur. Assessment Year 2014-15 proprietorship concern in the name and style