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

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

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

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)

1) shall be made where the consideration for the transfer of an immovable property is less than fifty lakh rupees. (3) The provisions of section 203A shall not apply to a person required to deduct tax in accordance with the provisions of this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— 8 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Manish Jaiswal vs. Addl

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)

Section 68 inasmuch as it is not in dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases and the trading results were accepted by the AO. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 8.7 Since the assessing officer, in the instant case, has assessed trade

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)

Section 68 inasmuch as it is not in dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases and the trading results were accepted by the AO. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 8.7 Since the assessing officer, in the instant case, has assessed trade

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)

Section 68 inasmuch as it is not in dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases and the trading results were accepted by the AO. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 8.7 Since the assessing officer, in the instant case, has assessed trade

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)

Section 68 inasmuch as it is not in dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases and the trading results were accepted by the AO. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 8.7 Since the assessing officer, in the instant case, has assessed trade

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

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

B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.05, 06 & 07/VNS/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Chief Medical Officer v. The ITO (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

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

B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.05, 06 & 07/VNS/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Chief Medical Officer v. The ITO (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

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

B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.05, 06 & 07/VNS/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Chief Medical Officer v. The ITO (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

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)

B-91/CIT(A)/GKP/2016-17, the 1 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jaiveer Singh v. ACIT appellate proceedings have arisen before ld. CIT(A) against assessment order dated 16.12.2016 passed by ld. Assessing Officer(hereinafter called “ the AO” ) u/s 143(3)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961(herein after called “ the Act”) . This appeal was heard in Open court proceedings