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

section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, respectively. There is a delay in filing the two appeals by the assessee. The learned AR of the assessee has explained that initially the assessee has filed the appeal in ITA No. 43/VNS/2020 against the composite order

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

section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16, respectively. There is a delay in filing the two appeals by the assessee. The learned AR of the assessee has explained that initially the assessee has filed the appeal in ITA No. 43/VNS/2020 against the composite order

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

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

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

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 N.P. rate 12.98% on 5518266.00 (5689233-170966 vat) That the ld AO was not justified in adding Rs. 3,07,341.0 and Rs. 45000.00 (32000.00 material purchase

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

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

C 119/170 Jatepur South, Ward 2(5), Sumer Sagar Road, Gorakhpur Gorakhpur. PAN:ACQPJ 6749M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Shri G.P. Singh, D.R. Date of hearing 09.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 16.12.2025 O R D E R This appeal vide I.T.A. No.31/Vns/2023 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 against impugned appellate order dated

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)

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

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