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

transfer of assets will be revocable and section 11,12 of the Income Tax will not apply. 7. The A.O. further noticed that the assessee is in receipt of income from the following sources: It is seen that during the assessment year 2011-12 the assessee is in receipt of income from the following sources:- S. No HEADS SCHEDULE

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

transfer of assets will be revocable and section 11,12 of the Income Tax will not apply. 7. The A.O. further noticed that the assessee is in receipt of income from the following sources: It is seen that during the assessment year 2011-12 the assessee is in receipt of income from the following sources:- S. No HEADS SCHEDULE

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

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

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

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