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)

36(1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature" (p. 2) 16. These questions were answered by the Division Bench in the following manner : — "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the revenue, as well as, the assessee

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)

36(1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature" (p. 2) 16. These questions were answered by the Division Bench in the following manner : — "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the revenue, as well as, the assessee

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)

36(1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature" (p. 2) 16. These questions were answered by the Division Bench in the following manner : — "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the revenue, as well as, the assessee

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)

36(1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature" (p. 2) 16. These questions were answered by the Division Bench in the following manner : — "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the revenue, as well as, the assessee

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)

36(1)(va) of the Act? (b) Whether the deletion of the 2nd proviso to section 43B by way of amendment by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature" (p. 2) 16. These questions were answered by the Division Bench in the following manner : — "7. Having heard the learned counsel for the revenue, as well as, the assessee

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

BRIJ BIHARI DUBEY EDUCATIONAL TRUST,GORAKHPUR vs. THE DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2014-15 Brij Bihari Dubey Educational Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner C-251, Budh Vihar, Taramandal, Of Income Tax-Cpc, Gorakhpur-273001, Uttar Pradesh Bangalore Pan-Aabtb7657D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Subhash Chand, Adv & Sh. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2023 O R D E R

v. M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited 2020[36] G.S.T.L. 305. 4.21 For these reasons, the delay of approximately 1950 days in filing of appeal in this case is not condoned as no "sufficient cause" has been shown u/s.249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the appellant's failure to file the appeal within the prescribed

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

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)

36 ( the ld. CIT(A) order was stated to have been received on 02.01.2020), but due to onset of pandemic Covid-19, the appeal could not be filed in I.T.A. No.124/VNS/2020 Shri Rishikesh Shukla v. ITO, Ward-III(1) Mirzapur 3 time. This appeal ought to have been filed on or before 2nd March, 2020, but the assessee filed

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

v. ABC Papers Limited , reported in (2022) 141 taxmann.com332(SC).The second appeal from the appellate order passed by jurisdictional CIT(A), Kolkatta shall lie with ITAT, Kolkatta Benches, Kolkatta, and an appeal u/s 260Afrom the appellate order to be passed by ITAT, Kolkatta Benches, Kolkatta shall lie with Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta. So far as merit

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

v. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Ramagya Prasad And 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 O R D E R SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee

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

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

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

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

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