SMT. SEEMA SHAH,VARANASI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Seema Shah, Income Tax Officer, B-37/1F 2Kh, Haijnatha, Ward –2(2) V. Birdopur, Varanasi, U.P. Varanasi- 221010,Uttar Pradesh Pan:Aqpps9465C (Appellant) (Respondent)

1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain

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

1) the primary object or principal business of which is the transaction of banking business; (2) the paid-up share capital and reserves of which are less than one lakh of rupees; and (3) the bye-laws of which do not permit admission of any other co-operative society as a member: Provided that this sub-clause shall not apply

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

1) the primary object or principal business of which is the transaction of banking business; (2) the paid-up share capital and reserves of which are less than one lakh of rupees; and (3) the bye-laws of which do not permit admission of any other co-operative society as a member: Provided that this sub-clause shall not apply

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

1) the primary object or principal business of which is the transaction of banking business; (2) the paid-up share capital and reserves of which are less than one lakh of rupees; and (3) the bye-laws of which do not permit admission of any other co-operative society as a member: Provided that this sub-clause shall not apply

ANJU JHUNJHUNWALA,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) dated 02.08.2016 162 163-174 175 176-178 submitted on 23.09.2016 , along with Copies of : (i) Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2015-16 (ii) Acknowledgment for filing of Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 20 1 5- 1 6 (iii) Statement showing Computation of Income for the Assessment year 2015-16 4. Notice under section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) dated 02.08.2016 162 163-174 175 176-178 submitted on 23.09.2016 , along with Copies of : (i) Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2015-16 (ii) Acknowledgment for filing of Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 20 1 5- 1 6 (iii) Statement showing Computation of Income for the Assessment year 2015-16 4. Notice under section

VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) dated 02.08.2016 162 163-174 175 176-178 submitted on 23.09.2016 , along with Copies of : (i) Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2015-16 (ii) Acknowledgment for filing of Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 20 1 5- 1 6 (iii) Statement showing Computation of Income for the Assessment year 2015-16 4. Notice under section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) dated 02.08.2016 162 163-174 175 176-178 submitted on 23.09.2016 , along with Copies of : (i) Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2015-16 (ii) Acknowledgment for filing of Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 20 1 5- 1 6 (iii) Statement showing Computation of Income for the Assessment year 2015-16 4. Notice under section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) dated 02.08.2016 162 163-174 175 176-178 submitted on 23.09.2016 , along with Copies of : (i) Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2015-16 (ii) Acknowledgment for filing of Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 20 1 5- 1 6 (iii) Statement showing Computation of Income for the Assessment year 2015-16 4. Notice under section

M/S JAI AMBE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES,VARANASI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(1), VARANASI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2019-2020 M/S Jai Ambe Agricultural The Dcit, Industries, Plot No. 211, V. Circle-2(1), Aayakar Bhawan, M A Marg, Churamanpur, Varanasi- Varanasi-221002,U.P. 221108,U.P. ( The Adi, Cpc, Bengaluru) Pan:Aahfj9428N (Appellant) (Respondent)

1)(ic) clearly stipulates that such income covered u/s 2(24)(x) shall be brought to tax if the same is not brought to tax under the head ‘Profits and Gains from Business or Profession’. There is no dispute that Section 2(24)(x) refers to any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contribution to any provident

M/S AVANTIKA INFRAVENTURE (P) LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital borrowed for the purpose of business or profession is to be allowed as a deduction in computing taxable income. The expression "for purposes of business or profession" occurring in Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of earning income, profits or gains". Accordingly, expenditure voluntarily incurred on the test

M/S AVANTIKA INFRAVENTURE (P) LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

capital borrowed for the purpose of business or profession is to be allowed as a deduction in computing taxable income. The expression "for purposes of business or profession" occurring in Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act is wider in scope than the expression "for the purpose of earning income, profits or gains". Accordingly, expenditure voluntarily incurred on the test

SHAMIMUL FATIMA,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 02, GORAKHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) of the Act that the capital gains should be deposited in the CGAS scheme is merely an enabling provision. If the assessee shows during assessment proceedings that the capital gains have been reinvested in the new residential house, exemption cannot be denied merely the amount was not deposited in the CGAS. In this case it is a fact that

AWADHESH KUMAR,BALLIA vs. ITO, WARD - 2(4), BALLIA

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2016-17 Awadhesh Kumar, V. Income Tax Officer, Arya Samaj Road, Ballia, Ward-2(4), Ballia, U.P. Uttar Pradesh Pan-Athpk1294N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022 O R D E R

1. That in any view of the matter the assessment made on an income of Rs. 14,73,417/- by order dated 28-12-2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act is bad both on the facts and in law. 2. That in any view of the matter the addition

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)

1. BECAUSE the appellant being an individual by status was unaware with the provisions of section 194IA, so the alleged default at the end on the appellant was not at all willful so as to made him liable for the penalty under section 271C of the Act. 2. BECAUSE the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) on the ground that

MEENA DEVI,BALLIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), BALLIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A) It Was Challenged That Taking The Sale Consideration As Per The Stamp Valuation Authority U/S.50C Is Beyond The Scope Of Section 143(1)(A) & There Is No Such Provision Mentioned In Provision (I) To (Vi) To Make Such An Adjustment. Further, It Was Contended That The Assessee Had Disputed The Valuation U/S.50C Before The Ld. Ao In The Petition For Rectification U/S. 154, However, Same Has Not Been Accepted. However, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Confirmed The Addition On The Ground That The Provision Of Section 50C Is Clear That The Value Has To Be Taken As Per The Stamp Valuation Authority & Therefore, The Ld. Ao Has Rightly Made The Adjustment.

capital gain in the return of income filed. The return filed on 31/08/2019 was 2 Meena Devi processed u/s. 143(1), wherein adjustment was made by taking the value of sale consideration as per Section

MANTRA MAJESTIQUE ASSOCIATES AOP,,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2016-17 Mantra Majestique Associates, V. Pr. Cit Aop Allahabad Flat No.22, S-20/53-1 Sunderam Villa, Varuna Bridge Budha Vihar Colony Varanasi Tan/Pan:Aadam0702H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri V. K. Jindal, C.A. Respondent By: Smt. Abha Kala Chanda, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 08 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 09 2021 O R D E R

section 143(2) of the Act by the ITO-1(1), Varanasi, for “Limited Scrutiny (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection)”. Therein, the following issues have been identified for examination: “i. Whether capital gains/loss is genuine and has been correctly shown in the return of income. ii. Whether capital gains/loss on sale of property has been correctly shown in the return

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)

1. That the A.O. has failed to issue notice u/s 143(2) which is mandatory requirement as such assessment is illegal and ab initio void. 2. That the addition made on account of CAPITAL GAIN is wholly wrong and against the facts of the case. 3. That in any case the authorities below have not allowed the proper opportunity