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)

unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. 10.1 The Ld CIT(A) noticed that the assessee has maintained regular books of account and the above said construction of new factory shed has been duly accounted for in the books of account. He further noticed that the AO has referred the matter of valuation to the DVO without rejecting books

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)

unexplained investment in the hands of the assessee. 10.1 The Ld CIT(A) noticed that the assessee has maintained regular books of account and the above said construction of new factory shed has been duly accounted for in the books of account. He further noticed that the AO has referred the matter of valuation to the DVO without rejecting books

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

unexplained 2 M/s Tiwari Constructions investment and interest to the extent of Rs. 2,79,312/-, the CIT(A) has sustained the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. I have heard the learned DR and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer rejected the books results for want of books of accounts as well as bills

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 bank deposits/investments can also be brought to tax u/s 69 etc. However, if the assessee offers explanation to the satisfaction of the AO with regard to cash credits and investments, then the AO should not bring those amounts to tax. There should not be any doubt that the satisfaction that should be arrived at by the AO should

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

TDS of Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mousami Choudhury, District Varanasi v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Varanasi Rs. 24,02,503/-, for ay: 2009-10. It was also submitted that the assessee e- filed income tax return in ITR-4, which is a return of income for declaring business income. The ld. Sr. DR submitted

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

TDS of Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mousami Choudhury, District Varanasi v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Varanasi Rs. 24,02,503/-, for ay: 2009-10. It was also submitted that the assessee e- filed income tax return in ITR-4, which is a return of income for declaring business income. The ld. Sr. DR submitted