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

E R PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These four appeals, all filed by assessee, being ITA Nos. 264, 265, 266 & 267/Alld./2017 for assessment year(s)(ay’s) 2011-12 to 2014-15 respectively, are directed against separate appellate order(s) dated 05.09.2017, 07.09.2017, 08.09.2017 and 08.09.2017 respectively passed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Varanasi (hereinafter called

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

E R PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These four appeals, all filed by assessee, being ITA Nos. 264, 265, 266 & 267/Alld./2017 for assessment year(s)(ay’s) 2011-12 to 2014-15 respectively, are directed against separate appellate order(s) dated 05.09.2017, 07.09.2017, 08.09.2017 and 08.09.2017 respectively passed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Varanasi (hereinafter called

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.

price of unregistered purchase is already less than other purchases there remains no scope for suppression of profit in this respect. I have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Appellant submitted the reconciliation of the value of the stock found during the survey with the value of actual stock as per audited statement and no adverse inference

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

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

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

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

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