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

vi) The AO observed that objects of the assessee as mentioned above falls under the limb “any other object of general public utilities”. The AO then refers to what constitute business , in legal parlance, and observed that the activities of the assessee are commercial in nature . The AO observed that these authorities are to be brought into

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

vi) The AO observed that objects of the assessee as mentioned above falls under the limb “any other object of general public utilities”. The AO then refers to what constitute business , in legal parlance, and observed that the activities of the assessee are commercial in nature . The AO observed that these authorities are to be brought into

ANJU JHUNJHUNWALA,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 the Investigation report and should have made the assessee. Thus

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 the Investigation report and should have made the assessee. Thus

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 the Investigation report and should have made the assessee. Thus

VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 the Investigation report and should have made the assessee. Thus

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 the Investigation report and should have made the assessee. Thus