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

UMESH KUMAR JAISWAL,KUSHINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), KUSHINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2017-18 Umesh Kumar Jaiswal, V. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Ramagya Prasad & Sons, Ward-2(4), Kushinagar Jataha Road, Padrauna, Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh Pan-Acdpj3729Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri. Ashish Bansal, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.06.2022

delay of seven days in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. Because of the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 4,07,517/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on the basis of turnover of Rs. 18,97,16,297/- as erroneously estimated

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:

business and filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19 on 06.03.2019 disclosing a total income of Rs.31,418/-. Subsequently, the return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act with the disallowance of UPVAT/GST liability of Rs 4,21,660/- U/sec43B of the Act determining the total income of Rs.4,53,080/- Aggrieved

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 02,, VARANASI

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

condone the delay and treat the return as a valid return. Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mousami Choudhury, District Varanasi v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Varanasi Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, a return of income shall be regarded as defective unless all the following conditions are fulfilled, namely :— (a) the annexures, statements

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

condone the delay and treat the return as a valid return. Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mousami Choudhury, District Varanasi v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Varanasi Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, a return of income shall be regarded as defective unless all the following conditions are fulfilled, namely :— (a) the annexures, statements

INDRA NARAYAN TRIPATHI,GORAKHPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 02,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

condone the delay of 34 days in filing this appeal late beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act , and we proceed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. It is well settled that if technicalities are pitted against justice, Courts will lean towards advancement of justice, unless malafide is at writ large

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

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

M/S RUGS MART,VARANASI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 03, VARANASI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesseeis in ITA No

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Rugs Mart Deputy Commissioner Of Barhi Ewada V. Income Tax (Cpc), Centralized District Varanasi-221207 Processing Center , U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (The Dcit , Circle-3, Varanasi, U.P.) Pan:Aalfr4883R (Appellant) (Respondent)

business income of the previous year? That was a case which related to assessment year 1984-85. The relevant accounting period ended on 30-6-1983. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the assesseewhich was on account of sales tax collected by the assessee for the last quarter of the relevant accounting year. The deduction was disallowed

UTKARSH SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD.,VARANASI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Utkarsh Small Finance National E-Assessment Centre, Bank Limited V. Delhi S-24/1-2, First Floor, Mahavir Nagar, Orderly Bazar, Near Mahavir Mandir, Varanasi- 221001, U.P. Pan:Aabcu9355J (Appellant) (Respondent)

business income of the previous year? That was a case which related to assessment year 1984-85. The relevant accounting period ended on 30-6-1983. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the assesseewhich was on account of sales tax collected by the assessee for the last quarter of the relevant accounting year. The deduction was disallowed

LAWKUSH SHARMA,SONEBHADRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3 (5), SONEBHADRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Lawkush Sharma Assistant Director Of Income 14-495, V.V. Colony, V. Tax (Cpc), Centralized Shakti Nagar, Sonebhadra- Processing Center , 231222, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 Pan:Artps9822Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

business income of the previous year? That was a case which related to assessment year 1984-85. The relevant accounting period ended on 30-6-1983. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the assesseewhich was on account of sales tax collected by the assessee for the last quarter of the relevant accounting year. The deduction was disallowed

BHUPENDRA NATH PANDEY,VARANASI vs. ACIT, R - 03, VARANASI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Bhupendra Nath Pandey Assistant Director Of Income 6-159/27, Kashi Enclave V. Tax (Cpc), Centralized Colony, Pahadiya Sarnath, Processing Center , Varanasi-221007, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (The Acit, Range-3, Varanasi, U.P.) Pan:Ajfpp1273J (Appellant) (Respondent)

business income of the previous year? That was a case which related to assessment year 1984-85. The relevant accounting period ended on 30-6-1983. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the assesseewhich was on account of sales tax collected by the assessee for the last quarter of the relevant accounting year. The deduction was disallowed

M.W.S. & CO.,BHADOHI vs. DY. C.I.T., RANGE - 1, VARANASI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M.W.S. & Co., Naya Bazar V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Road, Bhadohi-221401, Uttar Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Pradesh, India Bengaluru [Jurisdictional Assessing Pan-Aaffm2003E Officer Being Dy./Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Varanasi, U.P. (Appellant) (Respondent)

business income of the previous year? That was a case which related to assessment year 1984-85. The relevant accounting period ended on 30-6-1983. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee which was on account of sales tax collected by the assessee for the last quarter of the relevant accounting year. The deduction

M.W.S. & CO.,BHADOHI vs. DY. C.I.T., RANGE - 1, VARANASI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M.W.S. & Co., Naya Bazar V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Road, Bhadohi-221401, Uttar Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Pradesh, India Bengaluru [Jurisdictional Assessing Pan-Aaffm2003E Officer Being Dy./Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Varanasi, U.P. (Appellant) (Respondent)

business income of the previous year? That was a case which related to assessment year 1984-85. The relevant accounting period ended on 30-6-1983. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee which was on account of sales tax collected by the assessee for the last quarter of the relevant accounting year. The deduction

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

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

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