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

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 loan and other receipts are received from different parties on commercial lines. The provisions of s. 2

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

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 loan and other receipts are received from different parties on commercial lines. The provisions of s. 2

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

3. From the report of the Assessing Officer your honor will see that AO himself has noted that mostly transactions were made with Oven Commerce Pvt. Ltd. The alleged commission received were simultaneously transferred in the account of the said company i.e. M/s Oven Commerce Private Limited. This fact is proved from the bank statement submitted before your honor

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

3. From the report of the Assessing Officer your honor will see that AO himself has noted that mostly transactions were made with Oven Commerce Pvt. Ltd. The alleged commission received were simultaneously transferred in the account of the said company i.e. M/s Oven Commerce Private Limited. This fact is proved from the bank statement submitted before your honor

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

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)

3) on 12.09.2008 by ITO Kashipur , wherein under similar facts and circumstances who are doing similar activities with similar objects and received similar commission against similar activities, the deduction was allowed. The AO also observed that the assessee has also relied upon ITAT order dated 16.04.2013, wherein deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) from this activity, was allowed

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)

3) of the 1961 Act, filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) in third round of litigation , the ld. CIT(A) called for remand report from the AO and again the first appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by ld. CIT(A) in third round of litigation ,vide appellate order dated 19.02.2019, by holding as under: “7. I have gone

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

2. Because the learned AO has erred on facts and in law in not mentioning the specific item of default of appellant as to on which item there should have been TDS which has escaped deduction chapter XVII of I.T. Act relating to TDS. 3. Because the learned AO has erred in mentioned all the expenses under various heads debited

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

2. Because the learned AO has erred on facts and in law in not mentioning the specific item of default of appellant as to on which item there should have been TDS which has escaped deduction chapter XVII of I.T. Act relating to TDS. 3. Because the learned AO has erred in mentioned all the expenses under various heads debited

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)

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 assessment year , reads as under: “Payment on transfer of certain immovable property other than agricultural land

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)

2)(ii) of the Act. However, before us, the assessee could not substantiate the above said legal contention. Accordingly, we reject this ground. (IV) DEPARTMENT’S APPEAL – ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15:- 15. The grounds urged by the assessee give rise to following issues:- (a) Addition made u/s 40A(3) of the Act –Rs.25,48,011/- (b) Addition relating to unverified

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)

2)(ii) of the Act. However, before us, the assessee could not substantiate the above said legal contention. Accordingly, we reject this ground. (IV) DEPARTMENT’S APPEAL – ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15:- 15. The grounds urged by the assessee give rise to following issues:- (a) Addition made u/s 40A(3) of the Act –Rs.25,48,011/- (b) Addition relating to unverified

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)

2)(ii) of the Act. However, before us, the assessee could not substantiate the above said legal contention. Accordingly, we reject this ground. (IV) DEPARTMENT’S APPEAL – ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15:- 15. The grounds urged by the assessee give rise to following issues:- (a) Addition made u/s 40A(3) of the Act –Rs.25,48,011/- (b) Addition relating to unverified

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)

2)(ii) of the Act. However, before us, the assessee could not substantiate the above said legal contention. Accordingly, we reject this ground. (IV) DEPARTMENT’S APPEAL – ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15:- 15. The grounds urged by the assessee give rise to following issues:- (a) Addition made u/s 40A(3) of the Act –Rs.25,48,011/- (b) Addition relating to unverified

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

section 145(3) of the Act and estimated the income of the assessee by applying net profit rate of 8% on its gross receipts. 4. Consequently, the Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs. 33,62,788/- to the income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer further made an addition on account of the interest received from the bank

SACHIT HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,,GORAKHPUR vs. JCIT, TDS, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh.Vijay Pal Rao & Hon’Ble Sh. Ramit Kochar

TDS), Allahabad Range, Lines, Gorakhpur, U.P. Allahabad PAN-AAHCS3945G TAN-ALDS02773D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 26.05.2022 Date of pronouncement: 26.05.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH: These four appeals by the assessee are directed against the four separate orders of the CIT(A) all dated 25.10.2018 arising from

SACHIT HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,GORAKHPUR vs. JCIT, TDS, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh.Vijay Pal Rao & Hon’Ble Sh. Ramit Kochar

TDS), Allahabad Range, Lines, Gorakhpur, U.P. Allahabad PAN-AAHCS3945G TAN-ALDS02773D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 26.05.2022 Date of pronouncement: 26.05.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH: These four appeals by the assessee are directed against the four separate orders of the CIT(A) all dated 25.10.2018 arising from

SACHIT HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,GORAKHPUR vs. JCIT, TDS, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh.Vijay Pal Rao & Hon’Ble Sh. Ramit Kochar

TDS), Allahabad Range, Lines, Gorakhpur, U.P. Allahabad PAN-AAHCS3945G TAN-ALDS02773D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 26.05.2022 Date of pronouncement: 26.05.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH: These four appeals by the assessee are directed against the four separate orders of the CIT(A) all dated 25.10.2018 arising from