CAREERNET TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD.,,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 2, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2014-15 Careernet Technologies The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited V. Income Tax, 200, Charanlalchowk Range-2 Durga Bari Road, Gorakhpur, U.P. Gorakhpur-273001, U.P. Pan: Aabcc7128H (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance as aforesaid, 4. BECAUSE the order appealed against the contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice

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)

justice because appeal has been disposed of without giving proper opportunity of hearing. 3. The appellate order dated 19.11.2019 is opposed to the law and facts of the case because ld. CIT (Appeals) has not considered the nature of business in confirming the estimated income @ 8% NP rate on contractual receipt of transportation business. 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred

M/S THE KASHI SAHKARI CHINI CHINI MILLS LTD.,,BHADOHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, VARANASI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The Kashi Sahkari Chini, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mills Ltd., V. Circle-1, Aurai, Bhadohi, Varanasi. U.P. Pan:Aaaat7921J (Appellant) (Respondent)

natural justice.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Sugar Mill which belongs to Government of U.P. The assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2012 showing loss of Rs. 8,98,03,273/- . The case of the assessee was selected for framing scrutiny assessment through CASS, and accordingly AO issued to the assessee

M/S BANARAS SWARN KALA KENDRA PVT. LTD.,,VARANASI vs. ACIT, CC, VARANASI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Banaras Swarn Kala Kendra Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Ck-65/70A, Bari Piari, V. Income Tax, Varanasi-221002, U.P. Central Circle, Aaykar Bhawan, M A Road, Varanasi-221002, U.P. Pan:Aaccb1623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Shri A.K. Pandey, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2022

disallowances of bad debts amounting to Rs.1,85,572/- 4. Because on the facts and in circumstances of the case the order passed by the authority below is bad in law, invalid, arbitrary nature, against the principle of natural justice

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)

disallowance was called for either on facts or in law. 6. Because the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice

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)

disallowance was called for either on facts or in law. 6. Because the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice

MANOJ MISHRA,VARANASI vs. ITO, WARD - 3(3),, CHANDAULI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2013-14 Manoj Mishra, V. Income Tax Officer, Sultanpur, Ramnagar, Varanasi, U.P. Ward-3(3), Chandauli Pan-Awipm2469F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Prasant Pandey, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2022

disallowance of Rs. 4,38,737/- could not have been made by the Assessing Officer as also sustained by the “CIT(A)” after having accepted books of account and other records. 6. The order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice

JAIVEER SINGH,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 1,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by theassesseeis allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2014-15 Jaiveer Singh, Asstt. Commissioner Of Prop. Jvs Motors Income Tax, Range-1, V. H.No.514, Ramdhariniwas, Aayakarbhawan, Mohaddipur, Civil Lines, Gorakhpur-273001, U.P. Gorakhpur-273001,U.P. Pan:Avaps 3343R (Appellant) (Respondent)

nature and does not require separate adjudication , and are consequently dismissed. We order accordingly. Now , we are left with Ground No.2 raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with tribunal which requires adjudication be us ,and which concerns itself with addition being made by Assessing Officer to the income of the assesseeby disallowing advertisement expenses to tune of Rs.18

DEZIRE LIFE SCIENCES PVT. LTD.,MAU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3), MAU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledezirelife Sciencespvtltd Vs. Income Tax Officer, Near Dr.Mangala Singh, Ward 3(3), Mau Maunath Bhanjan, Uttar Pradesh Sahadatpura, Mau Uttar Pradesh- 275101. Pan/Gir No. : Aaecd1327L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Sanjay Dubey.Ar Respondent By : Shri .A.K. Singh.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

disallowance u/s.43B of the Act and dismissed the appeal in limine. Whereas, the assessee has considered the date of order u/s. 143(1) of the Act i.e 2-07-2019 and filed the appeal.TheLd.AR submitted that the assesee has good case on merits and prayed for an opportunity to substantiate with the evidences before the Lower authorities. Contra

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

nature and complexity of the accounts, volume of the accounts, doubts about the correctness of the accounts, multiplicity of transactions in the accounts or specialised nature of business activity of the assessee, and] the interests of the revenue, is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, he may, with the previous approval of the [[Principal Chief Commissioner

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

nature and complexity of the accounts, volume of the accounts, doubts about the correctness of the accounts, multiplicity of transactions in the accounts or specialised nature of business activity of the assessee, and] the interests of the revenue, is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, he may, with the previous approval of the [[Principal Chief Commissioner

M/S. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , VARANASI

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

natural justice.” Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. 4(i). The brief facts of the case (ay: 2011-12) arethat the assesseefiled return of income on 30.09.2011, declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny

M/S. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), VARANASI

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

natural justice.” Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. 4(i). The brief facts of the case (ay: 2011-12) arethat the assesseefiled return of income on 30.09.2011, declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASEE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

natural justice.” Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. 4(i). The brief facts of the case (ay: 2011-12) arethat the assesseefiled return of income on 30.09.2011, declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASEE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

natural justice.” Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. 4(i). The brief facts of the case (ay: 2011-12) arethat the assesseefiled return of income on 30.09.2011, declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2,, GORAKHPUR vs. M/S SEORAHI COOPARETIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,, SEORAHI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Seorahi Cooperative Cane Income Tax, V. Development Union Ltd. Circle-2, Seorahi, Gorakhpur, U.P. Kushinagar, U.P. Pan:Aabas8968D (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of deduction claimed by assessee u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the 1961 Act by the AO on the ground that the assessee is not engaged in marketing of agricultural produce grown by its members, and is merely a facilitator / agent for ensuring timely payments to the farmers for the purchase of sugar cane by sugar mills for which

MIRZA ARIF BEG,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 1, GORAKHPUR

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh.Vijay Pal Rao & Hon’Ble Sh. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2014-15 Mirza Arif Beg, V. Commissioner Of Income Tax, H. No. 184-B, New Colony, New Range-1, Gorakhpur Beniganj Chowk, Jafra Bazar, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan-Abxpb6421C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Subhash Chand, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.05.2022

natural justice. Mirza Arif Beg 7. Assessee may amend, alter or add any grounds of appeal before or at the time of appeal.” 2. The assessee has filed an application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidence. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the AO has denied the claim of deduction

SHAILESH MANI TRIPATHI,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Shailesh Mani Tripathi, Acit, Circle-1 384-E Infront Of Var- V. Gorakhpur, U.P. Vadhu Marriage House,Aarogyamandir, Shahpurrapti Nagar, Gorakhpur-273001, U.P. Pan:Aefpt 5272A (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowed to the tune of Rs.58,496/- and bringing to tax an interest income on refund of income-tax to the tune of Rs.5483/- which stood 5 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shailesh Mani Tripathi v. ACIT added by the AO in the hands of the assessee as the same were not declared by the assessee in its return of income