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. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 13,99,840/- under the head 'Capital Gain’ made by the assessing officer and his action as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is highly, unjustified, incorrect and the appellant is liable to get benefit for investment made in the construction of another property while determining

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

3. Reply to notice under section 143(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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

3. Reply to notice under section 143(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

ANJU JHUNJHUNWALA,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

3. Reply to notice under section 143(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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

3. Reply to notice under section 143(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

VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

3. Reply to notice under section 143(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

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

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)

3 Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/s Jai Ambe Agricultural Industries that it is an admitted position that the addition made was in respect to employees contribution of PF / ESI which was deposited late beyond the time prescribed for making payment under the relevant statute. It was submitted that Section 28 does not refer to income as stipulated under Section

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3 AY 2013-14 Shamimul Fatima the capital gain has arisen in March 2013. Therefore,he held that assessee should have invested in the property within one year from the date of transaction or should have deposited in the bank under the capital gain scheme. Accordingly, he denied the exemption u/s 54F. 5.The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed said order

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 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 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

SUJIT KUMAR AGRAWAL (HUF),VARANASI vs. ACIT, CC, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharay: 2014-15 Sujit Kumar Agrawal (Huf) V Assistant Commissioner Of 72, Jawahar Nagar Extension Bhelupur, . Income Tax, Central Circle, Varanasi-221005, Uttar Pradesh Varanasi Pan-Aaohs5397C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Asim Zafar, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.07.2022 O R D E R

Capital Gain by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee challenged the original assessment order and filed appeal before the CIT(A) and thereafter, the matter was carried to this Tribunal in ITA No.53/VNS/2019. In the meantime, the assessee opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 to settle the tax disputes arising from

AJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL (HUF),VARANASI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharay: 2014-15 Ajay Kumar Agrawal (Huf), V Assistant Commissioner Of 72, Jawahar Nagar Extension Bhelupur, . Income Tax, Central Circle, Varanasi-221005, Uttar Pradesh, India Varanasi Pan-Aagha9912D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Asim Zafar, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.07.2022 O R D E R

Capital Gain by invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee challenged the original assessment order and filed appeal before the CIT(A) and thereafter, the matter was carried to this Tribunal in ITA No.50/VNS/2019. In the meantime, the assessee opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 to settle the tax disputes arising from

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)

capital gain in his return of income and has paid tax on the basis of the said return. In this case the appellant had purchased a plot of land for Rs.68,25,000/- during the year consideration from Shri Ashish Jaiswal. As per the provisions of section 194IA, the appellant was liable for deduction of tax @ 1% of the purchase

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