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

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 for on 03.07.2017, by the Ld. Assessing

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 for on 03.07.2017, by the Ld. Assessing

VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 for on 03.07.2017, by the Ld. Assessing

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 for on 03.07.2017, by the Ld. Assessing

ANJU JHUNJHUNWALA,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 for on 03.07.2017, by the Ld. Assessing

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

6,667/- b) (Rs. 12x26,00,000/-) x 1 x 4 100 12 30 = Rs. 3,467/- c) Total Disallowance in case of TCDL Rs. 10,134/- Therefore, total disallowance on account of section 36(i)(iii) of the Act, turns out to be Rs. 12,10,134/-. In light of the facts presented in preceding paras, proportionate amount

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

6,667/- b) (Rs. 12x26,00,000/-) x 1 x 4 100 12 30 = Rs. 3,467/- c) Total Disallowance in case of TCDL Rs. 10,134/- Therefore, total disallowance on account of section 36(i)(iii) of the Act, turns out to be Rs. 12,10,134/-. In light of the facts presented in preceding paras, proportionate amount

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

6) To raise the moral and economic standard of the shareholders. (7) Generally to do all or such other things as are incidental and conducive to the attainment of the above objects.” 7. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 30th September, 2009 declaring total income at nil after claiming deduction /exemption under

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

6) To raise the moral and economic standard of the shareholders. (7) Generally to do all or such other things as are incidental and conducive to the attainment of the above objects.” 7. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 30th September, 2009 declaring total income at nil after claiming deduction /exemption under

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

6) To raise the moral and economic standard of the shareholders. (7) Generally to do all or such other things as are incidental and conducive to the attainment of the above objects.” 7. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 30th September, 2009 declaring total income at nil after claiming deduction /exemption under

GORAKH NATH YADAV,VARANASI vs. ITA, WARD - 3(4), VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain before the ld. AO, 3 Shri Gorakh Nath Yadav has not specified any charge as to under which limb he is initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Even in the show-cause notice, the charge has not been specified. Now, it is a well settled law that the ld. AO has to specify the charge

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1,40,30,177/-. Which was claim as exemption u/s 54B of ₹ 53,50,300/- and ₹ 93,94,781/- u/s 54F respectively. The Ld. AO noted that flat in which investment was claimed was actually booked prior to two years from the date on which capital gain actual arose to the assessee. It was further noted by him that earlier

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

c) accordingly, the appellant had deposited tax amounting to Rs. 7,67,192/- as directed vide certificate no. 221471660200121dated 20.01.2021. 3. Because the dispute that had been settled under DTVSVS related to the assessment order dated 28.12.2016 passed originally under section 143(3) by the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Varanasi and the issue involved

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

c) accordingly, the appellant had deposited tax amounting to Rs. 7,64,762/- as directed vide certificate no. 221475850200121 dated 20.01.2021. 3. Because the dispute that had been settled under DTVSVS related to the assessment order dated 28.12.2016 passed originally under section 143(3) by the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Varanasi and the issue involved

M/S RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA,AZAMGARH vs. ACIT, RANGE - AZAMGARH, AZAMGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Sarfuddinpur, Near Railway Tax, Range-Azamgarh Station, Azamgarh-276001 Pan-Aakfr2986A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh.Hari N. Singh Bisen, C.A. Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.02.2023

c) is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 7. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) and contended that the AO has assessed the interest on FDR as income from other sources instead of part of net profit. It was contended that the assessee is a civil contractor and the FDRs were made