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

gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, > [or sub- section (2) of section 73A] or sub-section (1) [or sub-section (3)] of section 74, [or sub-section (3) of section 74A], he may furnish, within the time allowed

VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

142(1) dated 28.06.2017 179 5. - Reply to above referred notice dated 28.06.2017, 180-181 submitted on 29.06.2017 , along with Copies of : (i) Income & Expenditure Account of appellant HUF 182 as on 31.03.2015 183 (ii) Capital Account of HUF as on 31.03.2015 184 (iii) Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2015 6. 185 Additional information sought

VINOD KUMAR SARAF HUF,GORAKHPUR vs. PCIT,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

142(1) dated 28.06.2017 179 5. - Reply to above referred notice dated 28.06.2017, 180-181 submitted on 29.06.2017 , along with Copies of : (i) Income & Expenditure Account of appellant HUF 182 as on 31.03.2015 183 (ii) Capital Account of HUF as on 31.03.2015 184 (iii) Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2015 6. 185 Additional information sought

ANJU JHUNJHUNWALA,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

142(1) dated 28.06.2017 179 5. - Reply to above referred notice dated 28.06.2017, 180-181 submitted on 29.06.2017 , along with Copies of : (i) Income & Expenditure Account of appellant HUF 182 as on 31.03.2015 183 (ii) Capital Account of HUF as on 31.03.2015 184 (iii) Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2015 6. 185 Additional information sought

GOPI KRISHNA VINOD KUMAR HUF,GORAKHPUR vs. PCIT,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

142(1) dated 28.06.2017 179 5. - Reply to above referred notice dated 28.06.2017, 180-181 submitted on 29.06.2017 , along with Copies of : (i) Income & Expenditure Account of appellant HUF 182 as on 31.03.2015 183 (ii) Capital Account of HUF as on 31.03.2015 184 (iii) Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2015 6. 185 Additional information sought

SARVESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

142(1) dated 28.06.2017 179 5. - Reply to above referred notice dated 28.06.2017, 180-181 submitted on 29.06.2017 , along with Copies of : (i) Income & Expenditure Account of appellant HUF 182 as on 31.03.2015 183 (ii) Capital Account of HUF as on 31.03.2015 184 (iii) Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2015 6. 185 Additional information sought

N.E. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES MULTI STATE PRIMARY COOPARATIVE BANK LTD.,,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 01,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2009-

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Hon’Ble Sh. Ramit Kocharay: 2009-10 Ay: 2013-14 Ay: 2014-15 N.E. Railway Employees Multi State V. Acit, Primary Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Range-1, Gorakhpur Railway Colony, Mohaddipur Road, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan-Aaajn0595P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Anil Kumar Pandey, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.06.2022 O R D E R

142(1) to show cause as to why the claim of deduction under section 80P should not be disallowed. In reply, the assessee referred relevant portion of the Railways Establishment Rule Nos. 2345 and submitted that the income tax is not chargeable on the income of the Railways Cooperative Credit Societies or Cooperative Bank because they are providing the facility

N.E. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES MULTI STATE PRIMARY CO-OPRATIVE BANK LTD., ,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 01,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2009-

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Hon’Ble Sh. Ramit Kocharay: 2009-10 Ay: 2013-14 Ay: 2014-15 N.E. Railway Employees Multi State V. Acit, Primary Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Range-1, Gorakhpur Railway Colony, Mohaddipur Road, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan-Aaajn0595P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Anil Kumar Pandey, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.06.2022 O R D E R

142(1) to show cause as to why the claim of deduction under section 80P should not be disallowed. In reply, the assessee referred relevant portion of the Railways Establishment Rule Nos. 2345 and submitted that the income tax is not chargeable on the income of the Railways Cooperative Credit Societies or Cooperative Bank because they are providing the facility

N.E. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES MULTI STATE PRIMARY COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 01, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2009-

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Hon’Ble Sh. Ramit Kocharay: 2009-10 Ay: 2013-14 Ay: 2014-15 N.E. Railway Employees Multi State V. Acit, Primary Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Range-1, Gorakhpur Railway Colony, Mohaddipur Road, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan-Aaajn0595P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Anil Kumar Pandey, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.06.2022 O R D E R

142(1) to show cause as to why the claim of deduction under section 80P should not be disallowed. In reply, the assessee referred relevant portion of the Railways Establishment Rule Nos. 2345 and submitted that the income tax is not chargeable on the income of the Railways Cooperative Credit Societies or Cooperative Bank because they are providing the facility

RADHEY SHYAM,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA No

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2012-13 Shriradheyshyam Income Tax Officer, 308, Sector 16, Avasvikas Colony V. Ward-2(3),Aayakarbhawan, Sikandra,Agra-282007, U.P.. Maqboolalam Road Pan:Aikps7948H Varanasi-221002,U.P.. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 49(1)(iii)(a) of the 1961 Act , but the onus is on the assessee to produce credible evidences to substantiate cost of acquisition by the previous owners as is stipulated u/s 49(1). Thus, in the interest of justice and keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that one more