DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

disallowance of claim of deduction of rs.9,91,23,980/- under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. At the outset

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

disallowance of claim of deduction of rs.9,91,23,980/- under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. At the outset

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U. P.. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

disallowance of claim of deduction of rs.9,91,23,980/- under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. At the outset

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

disallowance of claim of deduction of rs.9,91,23,980/- under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. At the outset

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

disallowance of claim of deduction of rs.9,91,23,980/- under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. At the outset

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)

deduction in the profit and loss account. Accordingly, it was contended that the disallowance u/s 40A(3) is not called

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)

deduction in the profit and loss account. Accordingly, it was contended that the disallowance u/s 40A(3) is not called

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)

deduction in the profit and loss account. Accordingly, it was contended that the disallowance u/s 40A(3) is not called

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)

deduction in the profit and loss account. Accordingly, it was contended that the disallowance u/s 40A(3) is not called

M/S JAI AMBE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES,VARANASI vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 2(1), VARANASI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2019-2020 M/S Jai Ambe Agricultural The Dcit, Industries, Plot No. 211, V. Circle-2(1), Aayakar Bhawan, M A Marg, Churamanpur, Varanasi- Varanasi-221002,U.P. 221108,U.P. ( The Adi, Cpc, Bengaluru) Pan:Aahfj9428N (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing the deduction under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of Rs. 1,28,680/- towards delayed deposit

M/S STAR ELECTRICALS,SONEBHADRA vs. DCIT, RANGE - 1, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Star Electricals, Vs Dcit, Bus Stand, Kali Mandir, Range-1, Shaktinagar, Varanasi. Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh - 231222. Pan: Aatfs6154N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2023 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, Am: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 28.12.2022 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Heard The Parties & Perused The Record. We Notice That This Issue Has Been Decided Against The Assessee By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cit In Civil Appeal No.2833 Of 2016 Wherein The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Held That The Payment Of Employee’S Contribution To Pf/Esi Shall Not Be Liable To Be Allowed As Deduction If The Same Has Not Been Paid Within The Due Date Prescribed In The Respective Statute. We Notice That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Followed The Above-Said Decision In Confirming The Disallowance Made By The Ao. Since The Employee’S Contribution To Pf & Esi Has Not Been Paid Within The Due Date Prescribed Under The Respective Act, We Are Of The View That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Rightly Confirmed The Disallowance By Following The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Referred To Above. Accordingly, We Do Not Find Any Merit In The Appeal Filed By The Assessee.

deduction if the same has not been paid within the due date prescribed in the respective statute. We notice that the ld.CIT(A) has followed the above-said decision in confirming the disallowance

OPAL HOSPITAL,VARANASI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, VARANASI

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

disallowance of ROC fees. 2. The assessee is running a hospital. The return of income filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 was taken up for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs. 17,32,944/- as deduction

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.

disallowed by AO and was later allowed by ld. CIT(A). We are remitting this issue of claim of expenses towards tax- audit fee and accounting charges back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to verify its genuinity including compliance of income-tax deduction

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

deducting of income-tax at source on payments made by tax-payers(Chapter XVII-B), prohibition on making payment otherwise than through prescribed banking modes beyond threshold limits(Section 40A(3) ), dealing at arm length price while dealing with relatives and associated concerns in which the tax-payer is interested (Section 40A(2)), disallowance

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, SULTANPUR vs. M/S KANPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2000-01 Dcit, Vs M/S Baroda Up Bank Circle-1, (Earlier Known As Kanpur Kshatriya Gorakhpur. Gramin Bank & Since Amalgamated With Baroda Up Bank) Gorakhpur. Pan: Aabck0383Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Robin Chaudhary, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2023 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, Am: The Revenue Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 02.07.2008 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-Ii, Kanpur & It Relates To The Assessment Year 2000-01. The Only Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “That The Ld.Cit(Appeal) Ii, Kanpur Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Entire Income Of The Assesse As Exempt & Without Appreciating That The Addition By The Ao On The Points Of Depreciation, Gratuity, P.F., Penalty Provisions For Npa & Disallowance Of Share Capital Deposits Are Not Covered U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The I.T. Act.” 2. We Have Heard The Parties & Perused The Record. The Assesse Was Earlier Known As Kanpur Kshatriya Gramin Bank. It Has Been Amalgamated Into Baroda U.P. Bank. The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act. The Ao Took The View That The Assessee Is Not Eligible For The Above-Said Deduction For The Reason That The Assessee Had Engaged Itself During The Year In Normal Banking Business. Accordingly, He Rejected The Claim For Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act. The Ao Also Made Various Additions To The Business Income Returned By The Assessee. The Assessee Had Declared A Net Profit Of Rs.5.69 Crores & The Ao Computed Total Income At Rs.10.85 Crores.

disallowance of share capital deposits are not covered u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act.” 2. We have heard the parties and perused the record. The assesse was earlier known as Kanpur Kshatriya Gramin Bank. It has been amalgamated into Baroda U.P. Bank. The assessee filed the return of income for the year under consideration declaring nil income

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

deducted and FDR made by the Firm by its own for the purpose of Bank Guarantee and used as security against O.D. from Bank. Sir, as all the above mentioned FDRs are made for business purpose only and incidental to the business. Therefore Interest received or accrued to be received be considered attributable and incidental to the business carried

INCOME TAX OFFICER, VARANASI vs. NEONATAL HEALTH ACADEMY, VARANASI

In the result, for statistical purposes, both appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

deduction under IT ACT, 1961 and in the case of assessee ,no factual condition was laid by the assessee to establish the genuineness of the expenditure said to have incurred for conferences/seminar.” (A.1) For the sake of convenience and brevity; these two appeals are being disposed of through this consolidated order. (B) First we take up the quantum appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, VARANASI vs. NEONATAL HEALTH ACADEMY, VARANASI

In the result, for statistical purposes, both appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

deduction under IT ACT, 1961 and in the case of assessee ,no factual condition was laid by the assessee to establish the genuineness of the expenditure said to have incurred for conferences/seminar.” (A.1) For the sake of convenience and brevity; these two appeals are being disposed of through this consolidated order. (B) First we take up the quantum appeal