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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 23(3)." **** **** **** **** "In this case we are of the opinion that the Tribunal violated certain fundamental rules of justice in reaching its conclusions. Firstly, it did not disclose to the assessee what information had been supplied to it by the departmental representative. Next, it did not give any opportunity to the company to rebut the material furnished

PRATAP DIAGNOSTIC CENTER,AZAMGARH vs. ITO (TDS),, AZAMGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

1) and 201(1A) holding the assessee in default due to non deduction of TDS on various amounts paid by the assessee. He has referred to the details of the various payments made by the assessee and submitted that the majority of these payments are not subjected to TDS under sections

PRATAP DIAGNOSTIC CENTER,AZAMGARH vs. ITO (TDS), AZAMGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

1) and 201(1A) holding the assessee in default due to non deduction of TDS on various amounts paid by the assessee. He has referred to the details of the various payments made by the assessee and submitted that the majority of these payments are not subjected to TDS under sections

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

1 Realization from allotted properties 4,80,44,700 2 Interest from bank H 4,58,23,859 3 Interest from allottees& Schemes I 2,32,25,290 Loans 4 Others receipts K 6,65,61,591 The above detail show that the incomes in the form of realization from allotted property, interest from bank, interest from allotees and scheme

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

1 Realization from allotted properties 4,80,44,700 2 Interest from bank H 4,58,23,859 3 Interest from allottees& Schemes I 2,32,25,290 Loans 4 Others receipts K 6,65,61,591 The above detail show that the incomes in the form of realization from allotted property, interest from bank, interest from allotees and scheme

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

1 Realization from allotted properties 4,80,44,700 2 Interest from bank H 4,58,23,859 3 Interest from allottees& Schemes I 2,32,25,290 Loans 4 Others receipts K 6,65,61,591 The above detail show that the incomes in the form of realization from allotted property, interest from bank, interest from allotees and scheme

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

1 Realization from allotted properties 4,80,44,700 2 Interest from bank H 4,58,23,859 3 Interest from allottees& Schemes I 2,32,25,290 Loans 4 Others receipts K 6,65,61,591 The above detail show that the incomes in the form of realization from allotted property, interest from bank, interest from allotees and scheme

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)

Section 201(1) of the Income- tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in-charge of TDS

PRABHAKAR UPADHYAY,AZAMGARH vs. ITO, WARD - 02, AZAMGARH

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2010-11 Prabhakar Upadhyay, V. Income Tax Officer Village-Bijarwa P.O.- Bankat Teh- Ward-2, Azamgarh, U.P. Sagri Distt-Azamgarh, U.P. Pan-Aaupu7174P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Adv Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2022

TDS of Rs. 1,38,024/- was allowed to the assessee in the proceedings under section 154. Thereafter, the case

PRATAP DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE,AZAMGARH vs. ITO (TDS), AZAMGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharay: 2013-14 Pratap Diagnostic Center, V. Ito (Tds), 573, Civil Lines, Azamgarh, Sadar, Azamgarh U.P. Pan-Aakfp8828M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri. Pankaj Choubey, C.A. Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.07.2022 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Allegedly Against The Order Of The Cit(A) Arising From Order Passed Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Time Hearing, The Learned Ar Of The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Has Filed An Application Alongwith Affidavit Dated 02.07.2022 For Withdrawal Of This Appeal On The Ground That The Appeal Filed Before The Cit(A) For This Assessment Year Is Still Pending & Has Not Been Adjudicated. He Has Further Pointed Out That The Assessee Has Inadvertently Filed This Appeal Because The Ao Has Passed A Consolidated Order Under Sections 201(1) & 201(1A) For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2015-16. Whereas, The Cit(A) Disposed Of The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Only For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16 & The Appeal For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Yet To Be Decided. Thus The Learned Ar Has Submitted That The Assessee May Be Allowed To Withdraw The Pratap Diagnostic Center

TDS), 573, Civil Lines, Azamgarh, Sadar, Azamgarh U.P. PAN-AAKFP8828M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri. Pankaj Choubey, C.A. Respondent by: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 04.07.2022 Date of pronouncement: 04.07.2022 O R D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee allegedly against the order of the CIT(A) arising from

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

1) of the I.T. Act. However, interest under section 201(1A) of the I.T. Act is leviable wherein the Principal Officer (deductor) does not deduct the whole or any part of the tax or after deducting fails to pay the tax as required by or under this Act. In that case he is liable to pay simple interest

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

1) of the I.T. Act. However, interest under section 201(1A) of the I.T. Act is leviable wherein the Principal Officer (deductor) does not deduct the whole or any part of the tax or after deducting fails to pay the tax as required by or under this Act. In that case he is liable to pay simple interest

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

1) of the I.T. Act. However, interest under section 201(1A) of the I.T. Act is leviable wherein the Principal Officer (deductor) does not deduct the whole or any part of the tax or after deducting fails to pay the tax as required by or under this Act. In that case he is liable to pay simple interest

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)

1) on 19th February, 2016 to the assessee , and response thereof the assessee submitted its reply dated 24.02.2016, as under : “ The observation in the notice that our activities against which we have received commission from the sugar mills are not of ‘marketing’ (of the sugar cane grown by our members) is not justified and correct considering the details of this

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

1) but the assessee did not respond to the notices except once through its counsel when the assessee filed a copy of the ITR with Audit Report. The Assessing Officer also issued a notice under section 133(6) to the Bank Manager where the assessee is having the bank account. No information was provided even by the bank

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)

1,4,5 and 6 are general in nature and does not require separate adjudication , and are consequently dismissed. We order accordingly. Now , we are left with Ground No.2 raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with tribunal which requires adjudication be us ,and which concerns itself with addition being made by Assessing Officer to the income

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)

1 lac is paid, only then the number of employees will be excess of 20 making the unit eligible for deduction. However, it has been discussed above that the deduction is admissible only if 20 or more employees are employed in manufacturing process but in the present case, it is not clear how many employees are employed in the factory

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

section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 50000 Provided that monetary gift received by an individual or HUF from relatives will not be charged to tax and spouse falls under the definition of relatives as per the Income Tax Act. 5. Interest on FDR made as on 01-08-2008 in the name of my wife Maya Jaiswal. TDS