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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

TDS Payable 73,500 5,76,674 8 Provision for 6,99,738 30,447 Taxation Total 30,19,86,328 21,97,16,115 I.T.A. No.135/VNS/2020 27 C.IO.No.04/VNS/2021 Assessment Year:2017-18 However, copy of summary of current liabilities for the financial year 2016-17 relevant assessment year 2017-18 along with respective grounds marked as Annexure

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 194C, 194A, 194I and 194J as concised

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 194C, 194A, 194I and 194J as concised

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

5. Nowhere in the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 words like charity or charitable, poor, economically weaker, subsidy/subsidized, assistance, uplift are mentioned. It is evident from the Uttar Pradesh Planning and Development Act, 1973 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. that

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

5. Nowhere in the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 words like charity or charitable, poor, economically weaker, subsidy/subsidized, assistance, uplift are mentioned. It is evident from the Uttar Pradesh Planning and Development Act, 1973 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. that

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

5. Nowhere in the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 words like charity or charitable, poor, economically weaker, subsidy/subsidized, assistance, uplift are mentioned. It is evident from the Uttar Pradesh Planning and Development Act, 1973 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. that

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

5. Nowhere in the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 words like charity or charitable, poor, economically weaker, subsidy/subsidized, assistance, uplift are mentioned. It is evident from the Uttar Pradesh Planning and Development Act, 1973 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. that

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)

5 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Manish Jaiswal vs. Addl. CIT to the Government . The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee being individual was not knowing the provisions of Section 194IA of the 1961 Act . The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that provisions of Section 271C is subject to provisions of Section 273B. The ld. Counsel

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 was selected for scrutiny. The assessee is a civil contractor and shown the net profit @ 6.96% on the gross receipts of 52,29,132/-. During the scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that as per the bank account statement

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

5. The ld. CIT(A) has held that the Assessing Officer was correct in calculating the interest as per the provisions of section 201(1A) of the I.T. Act. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. It is an undisputed fact that the deductee has fulfilled the tax liability of payment made

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

5. The ld. CIT(A) has held that the Assessing Officer was correct in calculating the interest as per the provisions of section 201(1A) of the I.T. Act. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. It is an undisputed fact that the deductee has fulfilled the tax liability of payment made

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

5. The ld. CIT(A) has held that the Assessing Officer was correct in calculating the interest as per the provisions of section 201(1A) of the I.T. Act. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. It is an undisputed fact that the deductee has fulfilled the tax liability of payment made

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

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

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)

5 The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd A.Ys 2009-10, 2014-15 & 2020-21 The revenue did not bring any material to show that the above said finding given by Ld CIT(A) was not correct. 5.7 Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition made

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)

5 The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd A.Ys 2009-10, 2014-15 & 2020-21 The revenue did not bring any material to show that the above said finding given by Ld CIT(A) was not correct. 5.7 Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition made

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)

5 The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd A.Ys 2009-10, 2014-15 & 2020-21 The revenue did not bring any material to show that the above said finding given by Ld CIT(A) was not correct. 5.7 Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition made