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

Section 139 of the Act , on 26th April, 2011 for assessment year’s 2009-10 as well as 2010-11 , the copies of which are placed at page No. 30-31 of the paper-book. It was also submitted that the assessee claimed refund of TDS amount of Rs. 17,66,512/-out of total TDS of Assessment Years

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

Section 139 of the Act , on 26th April, 2011 for assessment year’s 2009-10 as well as 2010-11 , the copies of which are placed at page No. 30-31 of the paper-book. It was also submitted that the assessee claimed refund of TDS amount of Rs. 17,66,512/-out of total TDS of Assessment Years

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

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 01.04.2009 and the amended provisions

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

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 01.04.2009 and the amended provisions

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

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 01.04.2009 and the amended provisions

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

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 01.04.2009 and the amended provisions

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

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

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

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

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 by the deductor and has also furnished form 26A. Thus, this is not a case where it can be held that the assessee was in fault in terms of section

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

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 by the deductor and has also furnished form 26A. Thus, this is not a case where it can be held that the assessee was in fault in terms of section

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

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 by the deductor and has also furnished form 26A. Thus, this is not a case where it can be held that the assessee was in fault in terms of section

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

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

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 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)

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

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

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)

6 The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd A.Ys 2009-10, 2014-15 & 2020-21 expenditure is not called for, when the own funds available with the assessee exceeds the value of investments, because the presumption in that case is that the investments have been made out of own funds only. Accordingly, on both the counts discussed above, the disallowance 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)

6 The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd A.Ys 2009-10, 2014-15 & 2020-21 expenditure is not called for, when the own funds available with the assessee exceeds the value of investments, because the presumption in that case is that the investments have been made out of own funds only. Accordingly, on both the counts discussed above, the disallowance made