SHAMIMUL FATIMA,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 02, GORAKHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of benefit of exemption u/s 54F of ₹ 93,94,816/-. P a g e | 2 AY 2013-14 Shamimul

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)

disallowance in accordance with Rule 8D by considering assessee’s submissions. 6.3 We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. We notice that the assessee has made investment at the fag end of year and it is also submitted that the assessee has not earned any exempt

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)

disallowance in accordance with Rule 8D by considering assessee’s submissions. 6.3 We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. We notice that the assessee has made investment at the fag end of year and it is also submitted that the assessee has not earned any exempt

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)

disallowance in accordance with Rule 8D by considering assessee’s submissions. 6.3 We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. We notice that the assessee has made investment at the fag end of year and it is also submitted that the assessee has not earned any exempt

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)

disallowance in accordance with Rule 8D by considering assessee’s submissions. 6.3 We heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. We notice that the assessee has made investment at the fag end of year and it is also submitted that the assessee has not earned any exempt

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.

exempt and without appreciating that the addition by the AO on the points of depreciation, gratuity, P.F., penalty provisions for NPA and disallowance

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

disallowed and added back to the total income. Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 provides as under:- 22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a cooperative society for purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961.- For the purpose of the Income

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

disallowed and added back to the total income. Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 provides as under:- 22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a cooperative society for purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961.- For the purpose of the Income

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

disallowed and added back to the total income. Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 provides as under:- 22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a cooperative society for purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961.- For the purpose of the Income

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

disallowed and added back to the total income. Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 provides as under:- 22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a cooperative society for purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961.- For the purpose of the Income

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

disallowed and added back to the total income. Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 provides as under:- 22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a cooperative society for purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961.- For the purpose of the Income

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

disallowed and added back to the total income. Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 provides as under:- 22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a cooperative society for purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961.- For the purpose of the Income

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

SHRI OM PRAKASH JAISWAL, PROP. M/S. JAISWAL TRADING COMPANY, ,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