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

143(3) of the 1961 Act. 5. The assessee being aggrieved by assessment framed by AO, filed first appeal before ld. CIT(A) , who was pleased to allow appeal of the assessee in first round of litigation. The Revenue being aggrieved filed second appeal with tribunal in first round of litigation, whereintribunal vide order dated 28.08.2015 in ITA No. 380/LKW/2015

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

143(3) of the 1961 Act. 5. The assessee being aggrieved by assessment framed by AO, filed first appeal before ld. CIT(A) , who was pleased to allow appeal of the assessee in first round of litigation. The Revenue being aggrieved filed second appeal with tribunal in first round of litigation, whereintribunal vide order dated 28.08.2015 in ITA No. 380/LKW/2015

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

3) The amount of under-reported income shall be,— (i) in a case where income has been assessed for the first time,— (a) if return has been furnished, the difference between the amount of income assessed and the amount of income determined under clause (a) of sub- section (1) of section 143; (b) in a case where no return

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(3). 11. Copy of Show cause notice issued under section 263,dated 323-326 05.02.2020. 327-338 12. Reply to above show cause notice on 02.03.2020 24. Ld. Counsel further submitted that, nowhere ld. PCIT has commented as to what further enquiries or information should have been sought by the AO, instead stating that AO should have considered

ANJU JHUNJHUNWALA,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(3). 11. Copy of Show cause notice issued under section 263,dated 323-326 05.02.2020. 327-338 12. Reply to above show cause notice on 02.03.2020 24. Ld. Counsel further submitted that, nowhere ld. PCIT has commented as to what further enquiries or information should have been sought by the AO, instead stating that AO should have considered

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(3). 11. Copy of Show cause notice issued under section 263,dated 323-326 05.02.2020. 327-338 12. Reply to above show cause notice on 02.03.2020 24. Ld. Counsel further submitted that, nowhere ld. PCIT has commented as to what further enquiries or information should have been sought by the AO, instead stating that AO should have considered

VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(3). 11. Copy of Show cause notice issued under section 263,dated 323-326 05.02.2020. 327-338 12. Reply to above show cause notice on 02.03.2020 24. Ld. Counsel further submitted that, nowhere ld. PCIT has commented as to what further enquiries or information should have been sought by the AO, instead stating that AO should have considered

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(3). 11. Copy of Show cause notice issued under section 263,dated 323-326 05.02.2020. 327-338 12. Reply to above show cause notice on 02.03.2020 24. Ld. Counsel further submitted that, nowhere ld. PCIT has commented as to what further enquiries or information should have been sought by the AO, instead stating that AO should have considered

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.

143(3). Before ld. CIT(A) , the stand of the assessee was that the AO has not explained in assessment order, the basis of arriving at the addition of Rs. 45,608/- . It was submitted when AY:2017-18 DCIT , Circle-1, Varanasi , U.P. v. M/s. Ratandeep Gold & Diamond Pvt. Ltd.,Chandauli,U.P. the AO has accepted the stock figure

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

3) of the 1961 Act, to examine the sale consideration of the property in the tax return which is less than the sale consideration of property reported in AIR. The statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the 1961 Act were issued by AO to the assessee, and there is no dispute so far issuance of these notices