SHRI PRAKASH YADAV,BALLIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD - 2(4), BALLIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2012-13 Shri Prakash Yadav, Income Tax Officer, Rampur, Boha, Akhar, V. Ward-2(4), Ballia-277401, Uttar Pradesh Ballia-277401, U.P. Pan:Agvpy3320Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

condone 29 days delay in filing this appeal with tribunal belatedly by the assessee beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act.I , now, proceed to hear the appeal on merits. 4. The assessee did not file return of income with the Revenue for impugned assessment year. Notice u/s 148 dated 27.03.2019 was issued by AO, which

RISHIKESH SHUKLA,SINGRAULI vs. ITO, WARD - III (1), MIRZAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year:2009-10 Shri Rishikesh Shukla, Income Tax Officer, S/O Shri K. P. Shukla, V. Ward-Iii(1), Sharma Colony, Mirzapur,U.P.. Waidhan,Singrauli-486886, Madhya Pradesh . Pan:Bcmps8094M (Appellant) (Respondent)

income @ 8% NP rate on contractual receipt of transportation business. 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.14,61,545/- on account of cash deposit in saving account which is a trading receipt as a part of transportation business. 5. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of 80C claim of Rs.34

DEZIRE LIFE SCIENCES PVT. LTD.,MAU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3), MAU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledezirelife Sciencespvtltd Vs. Income Tax Officer, Near Dr.Mangala Singh, Ward 3(3), Mau Maunath Bhanjan, Uttar Pradesh Sahadatpura, Mau Uttar Pradesh- 275101. Pan/Gir No. : Aaecd1327L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Sanjay Dubey.Ar Respondent By : Shri .A.K. Singh.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

delay in filing the appeal was condoned. 4. That the tax authorities erred in making the addition by making disallowance the claim Rs.4,21,660/- is not legally tenable and arbitrary. 5. That the tax authorities erred in law and on facts in creating a demand of Rs.1,39,630/- 6. That in relation to the grounds of appeal

GUNJAN RUNGTA,KUSHINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), KUSHINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Gunjan Rungta V. The Income Tax Officer Onkar Vatika Colony Ward 2(4) Padrauna, Kushinagar (U.P) Kushinagar Tan/Pan:Agmpr5334G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 15.06.2022, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That During The Year Under Consideration The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property For A Consideration Of Rs.30,50,000/-. To Examine This Transaction, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, The

income of the assessee. The NFAC accordingly restricted the addition to Rs.10 lakhs as against Rs.16,31,750/- made by the AO under section 69 of the Act. 2.3 Being further aggrieved, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE the initiation of proceedings under section

RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA,GHAZIPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 3(5), GHAZIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalerakesh Kumar Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bakharipur, Ward 3(5), Mohammadabad, Ghazipur District- Ghazipur Uttar Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh Pan/Gir No. : Axhpg7724R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri O.P. Shukla & Shri Ashutosh Barnwal, Advocates.Ar Respondent By : Shri A.K. Singh. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Rakesh Kumar Gupta 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay In Filing The Appeal & The Assessee Was Suffering From Cancer & Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With Details Of Medical Diagnosis To Substantiate The Reasonable Cause For Delay Of 151 Days In Filing The Appeal. We Have Considered The Facts Mentioned In The Condo Nation Application & Supporting The Evidences & Find That The Assessee Has Explained The Reasonable Cause For The Delay & The Ld. Dr Has No Serious Objections. Accordingly,We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal & Heard.

condone the delay and admit the appeal and heard. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Because, appellate order passed by learned CIT (Appeals) is bad in law as well as facts and liable to be canceled. 2. Because, learned CIT (Appeals) was not justified to make addition on amount Rs.2227054/- treating dimmed Income

DHRUV NARAIN SINGH,,GORAKHPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 1 (3),, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2008-09 Dhruv Narain Singh, Vs Income-Tax Officer, Bela, Pipraich, Ward – 1(3), Gorakhpur. Gorakhpur. Pan: Aoxpd7241P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shubham Singh, Ca Revenue By : Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2023 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, Am: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 18-12-2017 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Gorakhpur & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appeal Is Delayed By 117 Days. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition Requesting The Bench To Condone The Delay. It Is Stated That The Appeal Papers Could Not Be Prepared In Time Due To Inadvertence At The End Of His Tax Consultants. Accordingly, We Are Of The View That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Decision Of Ld Cit(A) Rendered On The Following Issues:- (A) Adhoc Disallowance Made From Expenses Claimed On Hiring Of Generator. (B) Addition Of Rs.1,14,100/- Towards Unexplained Cash Deposits Made In The Bank Account Of The Assessee. (C) Addition Of Rs.1,12,166/- Towards Deposits Received By Way Of Transfers. (D) Addition Towards Marriage Expenses Of The Daughter Of The Assessee.

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) rendered on the following issues:- (a) Adhoc disallowance made from expenses claimed on hiring of Generator. (b) Addition of Rs.1,14,100/- towards unexplained cash deposits made in the bank account of the assessee. (c) Addition of Rs.1

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 02 (04),, BALLIA vs. PREM SHANKAR VERMA,, BALLIA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year:2017-18 The Income Tax Officer V. Shri Prem Shankar Verma Ward – 02(04) Sripur. Takarsan Ballia Ballia Tan/Pan:Adopv7563Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.03/Vns/2021 [Arising Out Of Ita No.134/Vns/134] Assessment Year:2017-18 Shri Prem Shankar Verma V. The Income Tax Officer Sripur. Takarsan Ward – 02(04) Ballia Ballia Tan/Pan:Adopv7563Q (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has filed cross objection in support of the order of the ld. CIT(A). :-2-: 2. There is a delay of 14 days in filing of the cross objection. As per the application for condonation of delay, supported by the Medical Certificate of Dr. J. P. Shukla of Sharda Hospital, Ballia, we find that

RAMESH CHANDRA JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (5), GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

delay in filing of this appeal is condoned; and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. In this case, assessment order dated 26.12.2016 was passed u/s. 143(3)/148 of the Act, whereby the assessee’s total income was determined for Rs. 7,59,215/- (rounded off to 7,59,220/-) as against income of Rs.4,38,020/- returned

LATE NAND JEE UPADHYAY L/H SHRI DUSHYANT UPADHYAY,VARANASI vs. A.C.I.T., RANGE - 02,, VARANASI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2019-20 Late Nand Jee Upadhyay Vs Addl. Director Of Income-Tax, (Through His L/H Sri Dushyant Central Processing Centre, Upadhyay) Bengaluri. Flat No.102, Surya Mension, Ravindrapuri, Varanasi – 221 005. Pan: Aabpu0287G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2023 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, Am: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 13.08.2021 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appeal Is Barred By Limitation By 329 Days. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition Seeking Condonation Of The Delay On The Ground That The Assessee Was Attending Certain Domestic Problems Relating To Matrimonial Issues In The Family & Subsequently, The Assessee Also Died. Hence The Assessee Could Not File The Appeal In Time. Subsequently, The Legal Heir Of The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal With A Delay On Noticing Outstanding Demand.

Income-tax, (through his L/H Sri Dushyant Central Processing Centre, Upadhyay) Bengaluri. Flat No.102, Surya Mension, Ravindrapuri, Varanasi – 221 005. PAN: AABPU0287G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 27.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 29.09.2023 ORDER PER B.R. BASKARAN, AM: The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (1),, VARANASI vs. PROMINENT DATAMATICS MARKETING PVT. LTD., , VARANASI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

condoning the delay citing the reasons for the delay in filing before the Delhi benches, if so advised. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 9. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.09.2023. (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 26th September, 2023. 8. In view of the above discussion, I find that after the judgement

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)

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 to explain the case. 4. That the authorities below have erred in holding the cost of acquisition of property to be nil as per provision of the Income

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 20. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed on 28/08/2015, declaring total income of Rs.16,23,280/-. In the return of income assessee has claimed exemption of long term capital gain earned from sale of shares at Rs.49,83,123/-. The assessee had earned long

ANJU JHUNJHUNWALA,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 20. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed on 28/08/2015, declaring total income of Rs.16,23,280/-. In the return of income assessee has claimed exemption of long term capital gain earned from sale of shares at Rs.49,83,123/-. The assessee had earned long

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 20. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed on 28/08/2015, declaring total income of Rs.16,23,280/-. In the return of income assessee has claimed exemption of long term capital gain earned from sale of shares at Rs.49,83,123/-. The assessee had earned long

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 20. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed on 28/08/2015, declaring total income of Rs.16,23,280/-. In the return of income assessee has claimed exemption of long term capital gain earned from sale of shares at Rs.49,83,123/-. The assessee had earned long

VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 20. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed on 28/08/2015, declaring total income of Rs.16,23,280/-. In the return of income assessee has claimed exemption of long term capital gain earned from sale of shares at Rs.49,83,123/-. The assessee had earned long

SINGHAL AGENCIES,AZAMGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(4), AZAMGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 4. In various grounds of appeal assessee has challenged firstly addition of Rs.2,09,403/- by applying net profit rate of 10% of alleged undisclosed receipts and secondly, upholding the addition of Rs.8,027/- on adhoc disallowance @10% of the overall ‘shop expenses’ claimed

SANJAY GUPTA,ROURKELA ODISHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO() GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Income Tax Officer,2(5), CL-14, Basanti Nagar, Ballia. Rourkela-769012 PAN:BOHPG 1809K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Shri G.P. Singh, D.R. Date of hearing 10.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 16.12.2025 O R D E R This appeal vide I.T.A. No.61/Vns/2024 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2020-21 against impugned appellate order dated

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 4. The assessee is aggrieved by penalty of Rs.3,50,162/- on account of addition made under the head long term capital gain of Rs.16,10,438/-. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that, firstly while initiating the penalty proceedings