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

business, for acess or fee or any other consideration, irrespective of the nature of use or application, or retention, of the income from such activity; 8. As mentioned in the Para-7, the appellant earns income from realization of allotted properties, Interest from bank, interest fromallottee and other receipts The appellant is also authorized under Section 35 of the Urban

M/S. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , VARANASI

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

business, for acess or fee or any other consideration, irrespective of the nature of use or application, or retention, of the income from such activity; 8. As mentioned in the Para-7, the appellant earns income from realization of allotted properties, Interest from bank, interest fromallottee and other receipts The appellant is also authorized under Section 35 of the Urban

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

business, for acess or fee or any other consideration, irrespective of the nature of use or application, or retention, of the income from such activity; 8. As mentioned in the Para-7, the appellant earns income from realization of allotted properties, Interest from bank, interest fromallottee and other receipts The appellant is also authorized under Section 35 of the Urban

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

business, for acess or fee or any other consideration, irrespective of the nature of use or application, or retention, of the income from such activity; 8. As mentioned in the Para-7, the appellant earns income from realization of allotted properties, Interest from bank, interest fromallottee and other receipts The appellant is also authorized under Section 35 of the Urban

TULSIANI INFRAVENTURES PVT. LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VARANASI

In the result the addition of Rs

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklatulsiani Infrastructure Vs. Dc/Acit, Private Limited, 37, ‘Central Circle, Varanashi Elgin Road, Civil Lines, Aaykar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor Allahabad- 211001 Maqbool Alam Road, Varanasi - 221002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadct8858R Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : V.K. Jindal & Ashish Jindal Respondent By : Robin Chaudhary Date Of Hearing 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: (Jm): The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.05.2023, Passed By Cit (Appeals) Lucknow-3 For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed In Sec. 153 R.W.S 143(3) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. In Various Grounds Of Appeal The Assessee Has Challenged The Addition Of Rs.41,64,28,242/- As Against Rs.3,50,15,393/- Surrendered/Offered By The Assessee. It Has Been Stated In The Grounds That The Addition Has Been Made By The Ao By Extrapolating The Figure Of Alleged On-Money Noted In Seized Documents Which Was Rough Detail Of Amount Received/ Receivable From The Buyers For The Booking

business, a deduction of 19% is being allowed to the assessee company. To arrive at the deduction following methodology is being adopted: Sr. Description Rate Amount (in Rs.) Undisclosed No. Deduction (in Income (in Rs.) percentage) Differential 1. 51,41,08,941 Amount (As per Page 6 Tulsiani Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DC/ACIT CC Varanasi calculation comparing the agreed rate

M/S TIWARI CONSTRUCTIONS,SONEBHADRA vs. ITO, WARD -3(4), SONEBHADRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Tiwari Constructions Dibulganj, V. Income Tax Officer, Anpara, Sonebhadra, U.P. Ward-3(4), Sonebhadra Pan-Aafhj0966G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.06.2022

business of Civil Contract. The assessee filed its return of income on 26.9.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 2,68,120/- after deduction of salary and interest to partners. During the scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer issued various notices under section 142(1) but the assessee did not respond to the notices except once through its counsel when the assessee

THE MAHABIR JUTE MILLS LIMITED,GORAKHPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 , GORAKHPUR

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

business income of the assessee. Accordingly, we uphold the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) on this issue. 15 The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd A.Ys 2009-10, 2014-15 & 2020-21 12. The last issue urged by the revenue relates to the relief granted in respect of addition made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. We have adjudicated this issue

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 , GORAKHPUR vs. THE MAHABIR JUTE MILLS LIMITED, GORAKHPUR

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

business income of the assessee. Accordingly, we uphold the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) on this issue. 15 The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd A.Ys 2009-10, 2014-15 & 2020-21 12. The last issue urged by the revenue relates to the relief granted in respect of addition made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. We have adjudicated this issue

THE MAHABIR JUTE MILLS LTD.,GORAKHPUR vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

business income of the assessee. Accordingly, we uphold the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) on this issue. 15 The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd A.Ys 2009-10, 2014-15 & 2020-21 12. The last issue urged by the revenue relates to the relief granted in respect of addition made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. We have adjudicated this issue

DCIT,, GORAKHPUR vs. M/S MAHABIR JITE MILLS, LTD., GORAKHPUR

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

business income of the assessee. Accordingly, we uphold the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) on this issue. 15 The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd A.Ys 2009-10, 2014-15 & 2020-21 12. The last issue urged by the revenue relates to the relief granted in respect of addition made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. We have adjudicated this issue

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2,, GORAKHPUR vs. M/S SEORAHI COOPARETIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,, SEORAHI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Seorahi Cooperative Cane Income Tax, V. Development Union Ltd. Circle-2, Seorahi, Gorakhpur, U.P. Kushinagar, U.P. Pan:Aabas8968D (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS, and there is little effort to earn commission by the assessee. The AO 4 Assessment Year: 2013-14 ACIT, Circle-2, Gorakhpur v. M/s Seorahi Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd.,Seorahi, Kushinagar proposed to allow 1/3 of the gross commission receipts as total expenses incurred for earning commission income and proposed to bring to tax remaining commission receipts

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (1),, VARANASI vs. PROMINENT DATAMATICS MARKETING PVT. LTD., , VARANASI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

business, as of the assessee, is of giant proportions and the branches are far flung. The Tribunal has also very properly relied upon the auditor's report to draw the proper inference from the same" (Page-392). Therefore, on this ground itself, the appeal deserves to be allowed. NO JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT From a perusal

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA HUF,VARANASI vs. ACIT, CC, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2014-15 Vinod Kumar Gupta (Huf), V. Acit, 20, Raghunath Nagar, Mahmoorganj, Central Circle, Varanasi Varanasi, U.P. Pan-Aabhv1586P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. O.P. Shukla, Adv Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.03.2022 O R D E R

TDS thereon. Due date for filing of return of income the said amount has not reflected in their 26Q and after expiry of one year the said amount were reflected in 26AS due to deductor has made provision after filing of return of income by the appellant. 2. Because the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified

MANISH JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, (TDS), ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Manish Jaiswal, Addl.Cit (Tds), Prop. New Manish Medical V. Allahabad-211001, U.P. Agencies Pashupati Market, Gandhi Park, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan: Akdpj7675D (Appellant) (Respondent)

business of Real Estate. The assessee has purchased only one property during the year , which was covered by TDS provisions as are contained in Section 194IA , as its value was not less than Rs.50,00,000/-. The provisions of Section 194IA were inserted by Finance Act, 2013, w.e.f. 01.06.2013. The provisions of Section 194IA as were applicable during the relevant

JAIVEER SINGH,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 1,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by theassesseeis allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2014-15 Jaiveer Singh, Asstt. Commissioner Of Prop. Jvs Motors Income Tax, Range-1, V. H.No.514, Ramdhariniwas, Aayakarbhawan, Mohaddipur, Civil Lines, Gorakhpur-273001, U.P. Gorakhpur-273001,U.P. Pan:Avaps 3343R (Appellant) (Respondent)

income-tax at source by the assessee. 5. The assessee being aggrieved by addition so made by AO as above, filed first appeal before ld. CIT(A) , who dismissed the appeal of the assessee, by holding as under: “7. Ground of appeal no. 4 During the course of assessment proceedingthe AO noted that the appellant had debited

KAMAKHYA FRESH FOODS LTD.,GHAZIPUR vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE - 03, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesseein

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year:1998-99 Kamakhya Fresh Foods The Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., V. Income Tax, 45, Aamghat, Circle-3, Sahkari Colony, Varanasi, U.P. Ghazipur U.P. 233001 Pan: Aacck 2212P (Appellant) (Respondent)

income that “No deduction on account of 80IA have been claimed 7 Assessment Year: 1998-99 Kamakhya Fresh Foods Ltd. due to loss during the year”. The matter went up to tribunal , and the Allahabad-tribunal vide appellate order dated 17.08.2010 , restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh decision on the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA