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)

credit u/s 68 of the Act, while accepting the purchases, the said addition is liable to the deleted in accordance with the decisions cited above. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting this addition and accordingly uphold the same. 9. The next issue contested by the revenue relates to disallowance of Rs.26

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)

credit u/s 68 of the Act, while accepting the purchases, the said addition is liable to the deleted in accordance with the decisions cited above. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting this addition and accordingly uphold the same. 9. The next issue contested by the revenue relates to disallowance of Rs.26

ASHOK KUMAR SINGH,GHAZIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3 (5), GHAZIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

unexplained deposits u/s 69 of the Act. The assessee is also aggrieved in not giving TDS credit of Rs.94,211/-, being the income tax deducted from his Salary income. 2. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee is working as Principal of Sahdeo Sanskrit Maha Vidyalay, Maharaj Ganj, Ghazipur. The AO received information that

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and bring it to tax accordingly. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act is initiated for addition made u/s 69A of the Act, which is factually wrong. The aforesaid (para 1 page 4 of the impugned assessment order) itself shows that the Assessing Officer has made the said addition of Rs.2

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

Credits from various other individuals -holding accounts in the bank. (iii) Transfers from accounts of Gaadheya Developers Put. Ltd. and Sagar Township Pvt. Ltd. (iv) Large cash withdrawals totaling close to Rs. 1 crore. The head office of Oven Commerce is at Howrah, and as per the company website it is engaged as a corporate agent in the insurance business

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

Credits from various other individuals -holding accounts in the bank. (iii) Transfers from accounts of Gaadheya Developers Put. Ltd. and Sagar Township Pvt. Ltd. (iv) Large cash withdrawals totaling close to Rs. 1 crore. The head office of Oven Commerce is at Howrah, and as per the company website it is engaged as a corporate agent in the insurance business