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

TDS has also been attracted by the Principals awarding the work. The nature of activities of the appellant are akin to the activity of any other developer, builder or colonizer. 9. Thus, it is clear that income derived by the assessee from above sources are purely in the nature of commercial activities, the S.2(15) of IT Act clearly provides

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

TDS has also been attracted by the Principals awarding the work. The nature of activities of the appellant are akin to the activity of any other developer, builder or colonizer. 9. Thus, it is clear that income derived by the assessee from above sources are purely in the nature of commercial activities, the S.2(15) of IT Act clearly provides

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

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

56,968 21,90,31,494 6 Sundry Creditors 67,92,132 7 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

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

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 as on 01-08-2008 in the name of my wife Maya Jaiswal. TDS

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

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: 27 09 2023 Date of pronouncement: 05 10 2023 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate impugned orders

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

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: 27 09 2023 Date of pronouncement: 05 10 2023 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate impugned orders

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

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: 27 09 2023 Date of pronouncement: 05 10 2023 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against separate impugned orders

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

56,89,232.00. The Zila Panchayat has deducted Rs. 1,70,966.00 as a vat and net contract receipt was Rs. 55,18,266.00. The assessment has been made on the net income of Rs. 6,32,961.00 and the total income where by worked out as under:- 2. Return Income 2,80,620.00 +Deduction u/s 80C of chapter

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

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

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

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