OM PRAKASH JAISWAL,,GORAKHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, GORAKHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

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

disallowed. Accordingly we set aside the order passed the learned CIT(A) on the issue of gross profit and direct the Assessing Officer to sustain the addition to the extent of Rs.1,09,948/- and delete the balance amount of Rs. 6,99,387/-, 4. The next issue relates to the addition of trading liability of Rs.5,17,500/-. During

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

cash deposits. Accordingly, he applied 10% of net profit rate on the undisclosed receipts of Rs.20,94,029/- which worked out to Rs.2,09,403/-. Apart from that he has noted that assessee has debited Rs.6,84,090/- towards tanker and diesel expenses and shop expenses of Rs.80,270/-. However, supporting vouchers and evidences were not furnished. Accordingly, he made

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.

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. 4. We heard the parties and perused the record. The first issue relates to the adhoc disallowance

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 01, VARANASI vs. PERFECT TECNO COUNSULTANTS PVT. LTD. , VARANASI

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Perfect Techno Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle-1, Aayakarbhawan, V. N-1/65-A, Narrotam Nagar Colony, M A Road, Varanasi- Nagwa, Lanka Varanasi-221005,U.P. 221002,U.P. Pan:Aagcp3236N (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sh. Amalendunath Mishra, Cit Dr Assessee By: Sh. Mohammad Ashraf, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.04.2023 O R D E R

deposit during demonetization period” .The assessee did not co-operated before ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings as no reply/explanations/ submissions/evidences etc. were filed by the assessee before the AO during assessment proceedings despite sufficient and adequate opportunity of being heard granted by the AO, and an ex- parte assessment order was passed

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.

deposited within a week but you failed to do so. Furthermore while going through return of income filed by you on 07.11.2017 (vide E.filing No 295990071071117) we found that you have not fulfill your commitment made during survey with regard to payment of taxes. You are hereby provided a final opportunity to show cause as to why the aforementioned amount

M/S RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA,AZAMGARH vs. ACIT, RANGE - AZAMGARH, AZAMGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Sarfuddinpur, Near Railway Tax, Range-Azamgarh Station, Azamgarh-276001 Pan-Aakfr2986A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh.Hari N. Singh Bisen, C.A. Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.02.2023

deposit from which interest was earned by the assessee being furnished as security for entering into contract has not been established and consequently the addition made by the AO has been upheld. It is pertinent to note that for the assessment year 2007-08, an identical issue has been considered by the CIT(A) vide order dated 14.12.2012 in para

CHAMRU RAM,CHANDAULI vs. DC/ACIT, CIRCLE - 3, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

cash were allowed during demonetization period and therefore, the provision of section 69A/69C of the Act is not applicable on the deposit in bank account during demonetization period. The learned Assessing Officer has erred and acted illegally in not placing reliance on the same and erred and acted illegally in applying the provision of section 69A/69C