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

10(20A) was also omitted by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 01.04.2003 . The AO also referred to the Central Board of Direct Taxes(CBDT) Circular No. 8 of 2002, dated 27th August, 2002 , wherein it is provided that income of certain Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle

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

10(20A) was also omitted by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 01.04.2003 . The AO also referred to the Central Board of Direct Taxes(CBDT) Circular No. 8 of 2002, dated 27th August, 2002 , wherein it is provided that income of certain Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle

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

10(20A) was also omitted by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 01.04.2003 . The AO also referred to the Central Board of Direct Taxes(CBDT) Circular No. 8 of 2002, dated 27th August, 2002 , wherein it is provided that income of certain Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle

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

10(20A) was also omitted by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 01.04.2003 . The AO also referred to the Central Board of Direct Taxes(CBDT) Circular No. 8 of 2002, dated 27th August, 2002 , wherein it is provided that income of certain Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle

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

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

sections and filed the TDS return. The details of the same are to be filed by the assessee. Needless to say the assessee be given an opportunity of hearing before passing the fresh order. 10

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

sections and filed the TDS return. The details of the same are to be filed by the assessee. Needless to say the assessee be given an opportunity of hearing before passing the fresh order. 10

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)

10% of expenses, i.e., Rs.7,20,834/- on adhoc basis. However, we notice that the AO did not add the above said disallowance while computing total income. 17.2 The Ld CIT(A) agreed with the submissions of the assessee that adhoc disallowance was not permitted under law. He also expressed the view that the failure to deduct TDS should have

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)

10% of expenses, i.e., Rs.7,20,834/- on adhoc basis. However, we notice that the AO did not add the above said disallowance while computing total income. 17.2 The Ld CIT(A) agreed with the submissions of the assessee that adhoc disallowance was not permitted under law. He also expressed the view that the failure to deduct TDS should have

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)

10% of expenses, i.e., Rs.7,20,834/- on adhoc basis. However, we notice that the AO did not add the above said disallowance while computing total income. 17.2 The Ld CIT(A) agreed with the submissions of the assessee that adhoc disallowance was not permitted under law. He also expressed the view that the failure to deduct TDS should have

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)

10% of expenses, i.e., Rs.7,20,834/- on adhoc basis. However, we notice that the AO did not add the above said disallowance while computing total income. 17.2 The Ld CIT(A) agreed with the submissions of the assessee that adhoc disallowance was not permitted under law. He also expressed the view that the failure to deduct TDS should have

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

TDS)-1 Chandauli District Combined Varanasi Hospital Chandauli TAN/PAN:ALDCO0578E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Arvind Shukla, Advocate Respondent by: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. Date of hearing: 27 09 2023 Date of pronouncement: 05 10 2023 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate impugned orders

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

TDS)-1 Chandauli District Combined Varanasi Hospital Chandauli TAN/PAN:ALDCO0578E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Arvind Shukla, Advocate Respondent by: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. Date of hearing: 27 09 2023 Date of pronouncement: 05 10 2023 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate impugned orders

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

TDS)-1 Chandauli District Combined Varanasi Hospital Chandauli TAN/PAN:ALDCO0578E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Arvind Shukla, Advocate Respondent by: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. Date of hearing: 27 09 2023 Date of pronouncement: 05 10 2023 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate impugned orders

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

10-2019 for compliance on or before 14-10-2019 but there has been no compliance with notice too. A show cause notice was issued on 04-11-2019 for compliance on or before 11-11-2019 but, there has been no compliance again. You are aware that the proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act is time barred

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)

10 Assessment Year: 1998-99 Kamakhya Fresh Foods Ltd. Thus, it could be seen that ld. CIT(A) denied the benefit of deduction u/s 80IA to the assessee, as the assessee could not produce evidences to justify that it met the statutory conditions as are stipulated u/s 80IA(2) of the 1961 Act before claim of deduction u/s 80IA

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

10,220/- by order dated 03.03.2015 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the IT act is bad both on facts and in law. 2. That in any view of the matter the extra profit addition of Rs. 20,01,198/- as maintained by CIT(A) as against Rs. 33,62,788/- by Assessing Officer is highly unjustified. 3. That