ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BAJRANG BAHADUR SINGH, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, Commissioner Of Income V. Marhatha, Campierganj, Tax,Circle-1, Gorakhpur-273001, Uttar Aayakarbhawan, Civil Pradesh Lines, Gorakhpur 273001, Uttar Pradesh Pan:Afxps6284G (Appellant) (Respondent)

80,12,836/-(related to material consumed) and of Rs.1,81,47,450/-(related to labor payment) ignoring that the assessee failed to establish its genuineness and also failed to specify any mitigating circumstances for making such payment in cash in contravention of the provision of section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. The C1T(A) also erred

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 01,, VARANASI vs. M/S RATANDEEP GOLD & DIAMOND PVT. LTD., CHANDAULI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner M/S Ratandeep Gold & Diamond Of Income Tax, V. Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, M A Road, 19, New Mohal, Varanasi-211001, U.P. Near Balika Inter College, Mugalsarai, Chandauli- 232101, U.P. Pan:Aahcr4764Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 02/Vns/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 136/Vns/2020) Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Ratandeep Gold & The Deputy Commissioner Of Diamond Pvt. Ltd. V. Income Tax,Circle-1, M.A. Road 19, New Mohal, Varanasi-211001, U.P. Near Balika Inter College, Mugalsarai, Chandauli- 232101, U.P.

depreciation of Rs. 5,70,537/-). Hence, the remaining AY:2017-18 DCIT , Circle-1, Varanasi , U.P. v. M/s. Ratandeep Gold & Diamond Pvt. Ltd.,Chandauli,U.P. expenses debited after date of survey viz. 05.10.2017 were disallowed by the AO amounting to Rs. 11,43,949/- as unexplained expenses u/s 69C. 3c. The AO further observed that the assessee has made

THE MAHABIR JUTE MILLS LIMITED,GORAKHPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 , GORAKHPUR

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

depreciation claim. We notice that the AO did not find the said explanations to be incorrect. In our view, the AO could not have rejected the reasons given by the assessee without finding fault therein, i.e., if the AO could not find fault, the reasons given by the assessee should have been accepted. We also notice that the assessee

THE MAHABIR JUTE MILLS LTD.,GORAKHPUR vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

depreciation claim. We notice that the AO did not find the said explanations to be incorrect. In our view, the AO could not have rejected the reasons given by the assessee without finding fault therein, i.e., if the AO could not find fault, the reasons given by the assessee should have been accepted. We also notice that the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 , GORAKHPUR vs. THE MAHABIR JUTE MILLS LIMITED, GORAKHPUR

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

depreciation claim. We notice that the AO did not find the said explanations to be incorrect. In our view, the AO could not have rejected the reasons given by the assessee without finding fault therein, i.e., if the AO could not find fault, the reasons given by the assessee should have been accepted. We also notice that the assessee

DCIT,, GORAKHPUR vs. M/S MAHABIR JITE MILLS, LTD., GORAKHPUR

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

depreciation claim. We notice that the AO did not find the said explanations to be incorrect. In our view, the AO could not have rejected the reasons given by the assessee without finding fault therein, i.e., if the AO could not find fault, the reasons given by the assessee should have been accepted. We also notice that the assessee