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)

condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of section 43B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in section 43B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special leave petition

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)

condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of section 43B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in section 43B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special leave petition

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)

condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of section 43B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in section 43B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special leave petition

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)

condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of section 43B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in section 43B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special leave petition

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)

condoned. In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of section 43B. In the circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in section 43B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return. Special leave petition

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

17,66,512/-out of total TDS of Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mousami Choudhury, District Varanasi v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Varanasi Rs. 24,02,503/-, for ay: 2009-10. It was also submitted that the assessee e- filed income tax return in ITR-4, which is a return of income for declaring business

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

17,66,512/-out of total TDS of Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mousami Choudhury, District Varanasi v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Varanasi Rs. 24,02,503/-, for ay: 2009-10. It was also submitted that the assessee e- filed income tax return in ITR-4, which is a return of income for declaring business

THE SPRINGER EDUCATION FOUNDATION,,GORAKHPUR vs. CIT (E), LUCKNOW

delay in filing the application, so far as it relates to F.Y. 17-18 (A.Y. 18-19). 5. That the ld. CIT- Exemption is not justified and correct in not considering the application on 27.10.18 for grant of exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) on merits. 6. That on the whole facts, circumstances of the case and materials on record

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

BANKA ATITHI BHAWAN TRUST,,GORAKHPUR vs. CIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17 Banka Atithibhawan Trust, Commissioner Of Income-Tax C/O Banka Atithibhawan, V. (Exemptions), Maya Bazar, Gorakhpur- 5Th Floor, Tc-46, Vibhutikhand, 273001, U.P. Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010, U.P. Pan:Aaatb8576G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Ashishbansal, Advocate Respondent By: Shriamalendunath Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2023

1) ) refusing to condone delay in filing of Form No. 10B, for assessment year 2016- 17 . We have heard both the parties in Open Courtproceedings through physical hearing mode. Assessment Year: 2016-17 Banka AtithiBhawan Trust, Gorakhpur v. CIT(E), Lucknow 2. At the outset ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this appeal is not maintainable with Income

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

17. The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against order dated 22/03/2019 for A.Y.2014-15 and 07/08/2019 for A.Y.2015-16. As admitted by both the parties, the facts and issues involved in the aforesaid case for both the years are exactly pari-materia to the case of Anju Jhunjhunwala, wherein similar finding has been given by the ld. PCIT

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

17. The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against order dated 22/03/2019 for A.Y.2014-15 and 07/08/2019 for A.Y.2015-16. As admitted by both the parties, the facts and issues involved in the aforesaid case for both the years are exactly pari-materia to the case of Anju Jhunjhunwala, wherein similar finding has been given by the ld. PCIT

ANJU JHUNJHUNWALA,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

17. The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against order dated 22/03/2019 for A.Y.2014-15 and 07/08/2019 for A.Y.2015-16. As admitted by both the parties, the facts and issues involved in the aforesaid case for both the years are exactly pari-materia to the case of Anju Jhunjhunwala, wherein similar finding has been given by the ld. PCIT

VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

17. The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against order dated 22/03/2019 for A.Y.2014-15 and 07/08/2019 for A.Y.2015-16. As admitted by both the parties, the facts and issues involved in the aforesaid case for both the years are exactly pari-materia to the case of Anju Jhunjhunwala, wherein similar finding has been given by the ld. PCIT

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

17. The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against order dated 22/03/2019 for A.Y.2014-15 and 07/08/2019 for A.Y.2015-16. As admitted by both the parties, the facts and issues involved in the aforesaid case for both the years are exactly pari-materia to the case of Anju Jhunjhunwala, wherein similar finding has been given by the ld. PCIT

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)

section 143(3) of the 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