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

4. Because the learned AO has not brought on record the material evidence to prove the default of TDS on the part of the appellant. 5. Because the order u/s 201/201(1A) dated 31.03.2017 passed by the learned AO is erroneous in law, without evidence and contrary to the facts on record. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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

4. Because the learned AO has not brought on record the material evidence to prove the default of TDS on the part of the appellant. 5. Because the order u/s 201/201(1A) dated 31.03.2017 passed by the learned AO is erroneous in law, without evidence and contrary to the facts on record. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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

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(15) of IT Act which have been amended with effect from

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

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(15) of IT Act which have been amended with effect from

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

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(15) of IT Act which have been amended with effect from

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

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(15) of IT Act which have been amended with effect from

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, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under section 201 (1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee- assessee or the liability for penalty under Section 271C of the Income- tax Act." Thus, it is clear that the appellant

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

4. Cash gift from wife. As per 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

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)

Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) from this activity, was allowed by the tribunal. The AO observed that the fact of collection of commission is very simple , the cane mill deposit the commission against ganna parchies directly into the assessee’s account after deducting TDS, and there is little effort to earn commission by the assessee. The AO 4

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

4. Disallowance of (out of material purchase, Salary and wages and miscellaneous expense) Rs. 45,000.00 Total Rs. 7,32,961.00 Less: Bank interest 16,576.00 +Deduction under section 80D C of chapter VI 1,00,000.00 Rs. 1,16,576.00 Net Contract Income Rs. 6,16,385.00 Prabhakar Upadhyay The net contract Income assessed Rs. 7,16,385.00 gives

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

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

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)

4 Assessment Year: 1998-99 Kamakhya Fresh Foods Ltd. conditions that it “employs 20 or more workers in a manufacturing process”, along with other conditions mentioned in sub section (2). Details of employees have not been submitted by the appellant either before the AO or during the course of appellate proceedings. It has merely been submitted that total salary paid

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)

Section 40(a)(ia) of the 1961 Act for non deduction of income- tax at source under the provisions of the 1961 Act. 4. The assessee filed its return of income on 20.11.2014, declaring total income of Rs. 11,54,390/- and agricultural income of Rs. 4,90,200/- . The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing

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