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

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

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

5. Aggrieved by dismissal of the appeal filed by ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed second appeal with the tribunal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assesseeis a housewife. Our attention was drawn by ld. Counsel for the assessee to Affidavit dated 23.08.2018 filed by the assessee before ld. CIT(A) , which is at page

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

5. Aggrieved by dismissal of the appeal filed by ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed second appeal with the tribunal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assesseeis a housewife. Our attention was drawn by ld. Counsel for the assessee to Affidavit dated 23.08.2018 filed by the assessee before ld. CIT(A) , which is at page

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

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)

TDS, and there is little effort to earn commission by the assessee. The AO 4 Assessment Year: 2013-14 ACIT, Circle-2, Gorakhpur v. M/s Seorahi Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd.,Seorahi, Kushinagar proposed to allow 1/3 of the gross commission receipts as total expenses incurred for earning commission income and proposed to bring to tax remaining commission receipts

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

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 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

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

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)

TDS made on the said payments. Further the list had description of only Rs. 6,19,557/- out of the total expenditure of Rs. 1856025/-. Advertisement expenses are covered under the provisions of section 194C of the Act. The appellant could not submit any details regarding the expenditure made by him. In view of the above I do not find