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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 23(3)." **** **** **** **** "In this case we are of the opinion that the Tribunal violated certain fundamental rules of justice in reaching its conclusions. Firstly, it did not disclose to the assessee what information had been supplied to it by the departmental representative. Next, it did not give any opportunity to the company to rebut the material furnished

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

7. The A.O. further noticed that the assessee is in receipt of income from the following sources: It is seen that during the assessment year 2011-12 the assessee is in receipt of income from the following sources:- S. No HEADS SCHEDULE NO. AMOUNT (RS.) 1 Realization from allotted properties 4,80,44,700 2 Interest from bank

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

7. The A.O. further noticed that the assessee is in receipt of income from the following sources: It is seen that during the assessment year 2011-12 the assessee is in receipt of income from the following sources:- S. No HEADS SCHEDULE NO. AMOUNT (RS.) 1 Realization from allotted properties 4,80,44,700 2 Interest from bank

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

7. The A.O. further noticed that the assessee is in receipt of income from the following sources: It is seen that during the assessment year 2011-12 the assessee is in receipt of income from the following sources:- S. No HEADS SCHEDULE NO. AMOUNT (RS.) 1 Realization from allotted properties 4,80,44,700 2 Interest from bank

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

7. The A.O. further noticed that the assessee is in receipt of income from the following sources: It is seen that during the assessment year 2011-12 the assessee is in receipt of income from the following sources:- S. No HEADS SCHEDULE NO. AMOUNT (RS.) 1 Realization from allotted properties 4,80,44,700 2 Interest from 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)

B) dated 29.1.1997 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, in our considered opinion, should put an end to the controversy. The circular declares "no demand visualized under Section 201(1) of the Income- tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in-charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid

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

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

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)

B-91/CIT(A)/GKP/2016-17, the 1 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jaiveer Singh v. ACIT appellate proceedings have arisen before ld. CIT(A) against assessment order dated 16.12.2016 passed by ld. Assessing Officer(hereinafter called “ the AO” ) u/s 143(3)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961(herein after called “ the Act”) . This appeal was heard in Open court proceedings

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)

7) TMI 1247 as under:- 10 The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd A.Ys 2009-10, 2014-15 & 2020-21 “This finding of AO remained undisturbed before the CIT(A) as well and has been accepted by the ITAT. Proceeding on this basis, the ITAT observed that the soles, purchases as well as gross profits as disclosed by the assessee have been

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)

7) TMI 1247 as under:- 10 The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd A.Ys 2009-10, 2014-15 & 2020-21 “This finding of AO remained undisturbed before the CIT(A) as well and has been accepted by the ITAT. Proceeding on this basis, the ITAT observed that the soles, purchases as well as gross profits as disclosed by the assessee have been

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)

7) TMI 1247 as under:- 10 The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd A.Ys 2009-10, 2014-15 & 2020-21 “This finding of AO remained undisturbed before the CIT(A) as well and has been accepted by the ITAT. Proceeding on this basis, the ITAT observed that the soles, purchases as well as gross profits as disclosed by the assessee have been

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)

7) TMI 1247 as under:- 10 The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd A.Ys 2009-10, 2014-15 & 2020-21 “This finding of AO remained undisturbed before the CIT(A) as well and has been accepted by the ITAT. Proceeding on this basis, the ITAT observed that the soles, purchases as well as gross profits as disclosed by the assessee have been