CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER,CHANDAULI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS - 1, VARANASI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

deduct TDS and if he has not deducted TDS, then interest would be payable till the date on which tax was actually

CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER,CHANDAULI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS - 1, VARANASI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

deduct TDS and if he has not deducted TDS, then interest would be payable till the date on which tax was actually

CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, ,CHANDAULI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, TDS - 1, VARANASI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

deduct TDS and if he has not deducted TDS, then interest would be payable till the date on which tax was actually

ASHOK KUMAR SINGH,GHAZIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3 (5), GHAZIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

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

deducted TDS of Rs.94,211/- from salary given to the assessee. However, while remitting the TDS amount, the assessment year

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)

TDS deducted, the AO disallowed 10% of expenses, i.e., Rs.7,20,834/- on adhoc basis. However, we notice that the AO did not add the above

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)

TDS deducted, the AO disallowed 10% of expenses, i.e., Rs.7,20,834/- on adhoc basis. However, we notice that the AO did not add the above

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)

TDS deducted, the AO disallowed 10% of expenses, i.e., Rs.7,20,834/- on adhoc basis. However, we notice that the AO did not add the above

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)

TDS deducted, the AO disallowed 10% of expenses, i.e., Rs.7,20,834/- on adhoc basis. However, we notice that the AO did not add the above

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)

deducting TDS, and there is little effort to earn commission by the assessee. The AO 4 Assessment Year: 2013-14 ACIT

SMT. SUDAMA DEVI L/H OF LATE LALCHAND YADAV,SONEBHADRA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Blesmt. Sudama Devi, Acit Circle-1, Varanasi. L/H Of Late Lalchand Yadav, Wie Colony Anpara, Sonebhadra, Uttar Pradesh- 231225

TDS deducted from the contract payments and a sum of Rs.16,07,030/- was claimed as refund. 3. The above

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)

deduct income-tax at source u/s. 194IA of the Act of Rs.68,250/- while making payment of Rs. 68,25,000/- to seller for purchasing the said plot of land , as the prescribed rate of TDS

RAMESH CHANDRA JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (5), GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

TDS on the same have already been deducted by the bank appropriately but certificate for the same is not provided

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)

deducted at source under the provisions of the 1961 Act ,on advertisement expenditure and to file copy of challans of TDS

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)

TDS, or to any other government agencies specifying number/name etc of worker employed ,or payment of wages by bank etc. could have been procured as secondary evidence to justify employability of twenty or more workers in manufacturing process. Despite three round of litigation , the assessee is not able to justify/substantiate the meeting of conditions for claiming deduction

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

Deduction percentage: 4 a. Commission paid in cash to brokers: 2% of actual sale proceeds. But since the actual sale proceeds are suppressed therefore, percentage of commission paid outside books of accounts will have to be appropriated /increased proportionately (Since almost all of 5 such unaccounted commission 10 payment would not find place in regular books in the absence

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 02,, VARANASI

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

TDS of Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mousami Choudhury, District Varanasi v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Varanasi Rs. 24,02,503/-, for ay: 2009-10. It was also submitted that the assessee e- filed income tax return in ITR-4, which is a return of income for declaring business income. The ld. Sr. DR submitted

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 2, VARANASI

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

TDS of Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mousami Choudhury, District Varanasi v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Varanasi Rs. 24,02,503/-, for ay: 2009-10. It was also submitted that the assessee e- filed income tax return in ITR-4, which is a return of income for declaring business income. The ld. Sr. DR submitted

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

deductions were disallowed, by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that detailed information regarding them was not available. Justice was not done to the assessee. It was not possible for the assessee's to produce the original account books, which were destroyed in fire. There was, however, other material mainly consisting of the auditors' reports were material