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. 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

iii) Regulation and implementation of various plans for development of the city. (iv) Development and allotments of plots, residential units etc. to specific class of people/public at large, (v) Infrastructure development including roads, sever(sic. sewer) etc.” 4(vi) The AO observed that objects of the assessee as mentioned above falls under the limb “any other object of general public

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

iii) Regulation and implementation of various plans for development of the city. (iv) Development and allotments of plots, residential units etc. to specific class of people/public at large, (v) Infrastructure development including roads, sever(sic. sewer) etc.” 4(vi) The AO observed that objects of the assessee as mentioned above falls under the limb “any other object of general public

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

iii) Regulation and implementation of various plans for development of the city. (iv) Development and allotments of plots, residential units etc. to specific class of people/public at large, (v) Infrastructure development including roads, sever(sic. sewer) etc.” 4(vi) The AO observed that objects of the assessee as mentioned above falls under the limb “any other object of general public

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

iii) Regulation and implementation of various plans for development of the city. (iv) Development and allotments of plots, residential units etc. to specific class of people/public at large, (v) Infrastructure development including roads, sever(sic. sewer) etc.” 4(vi) The AO observed that objects of the assessee as mentioned above falls under the limb “any other object of general public

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)

6 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Manish Jaiswal vs. Addl. CIT plot of land in the return of income filed with Revenue and paid due taxes to government. Even similar contentions are raised vide ground number 4 filed by assessee in memo of appeal filed before tribunal , and statements were made by ld. Counsel for the assessee before the DB that

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)

III) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 – ASSESSEE’S CROSS OBJECTION:- 13. In the Cross Objection, the assessee has raised certain legal contentions. The first legal contention is that the intimation issued u/s 143(1) is amounted to assessment and hence the subsequent assessment order is illegal as being void ab-initio. This legal contention is liable to be rejected

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)

III) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 – ASSESSEE’S CROSS OBJECTION:- 13. In the Cross Objection, the assessee has raised certain legal contentions. The first legal contention is that the intimation issued u/s 143(1) is amounted to assessment and hence the subsequent assessment order is illegal as being void ab-initio. This legal contention is liable to be rejected

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)

III) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 – ASSESSEE’S CROSS OBJECTION:- 13. In the Cross Objection, the assessee has raised certain legal contentions. The first legal contention is that the intimation issued u/s 143(1) is amounted to assessment and hence the subsequent assessment order is illegal as being void ab-initio. This legal contention is liable to be rejected

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)

III) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 – ASSESSEE’S CROSS OBJECTION:- 13. In the Cross Objection, the assessee has raised certain legal contentions. The first legal contention is that the intimation issued u/s 143(1) is amounted to assessment and hence the subsequent assessment order is illegal as being void ab-initio. This legal contention is liable to be rejected