RAEES ALAM SIDDIQUI,GHAZIPUR vs. DY. C.I.T., RANGE - 1, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

penalty of Rs. 2,13,250/- u/s 271 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act. 1961, levied by assessing officer in absence of any satisfaction drawn that the 1 Raees Alam Siddiqui A.Y. 2015-16 disallowances

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.

penalty provisions for NPA and disallowance of share capital deposits are not covered u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the I.T. Act.” 2. We have

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

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

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

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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (1),, VARANASI vs. PROMINENT DATAMATICS MARKETING PVT. LTD., , VARANASI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

penalty proceedings u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act.” Again show cause notice was issued dated 15th November, 2019 requesting the assessee to compliance on or before 20th November, 2019 as under: “Your case is under scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y-2017-18. In this connection a notice

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

penalty U/s 270 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.1,71,07,822/- was imposed by the AO on the basis of addition made during the course of assessment proceeding after obtaining approval from the competent authority. It is pertinent to note that during the course of assessment proceedings, addition of Rs.2

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

penalty U/s 270 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs.1,71,07,822/- was imposed by the AO on the basis of addition made during the course of assessment proceeding after obtaining approval from the competent authority. It is pertinent to note that during the course of assessment proceedings, addition of Rs.2

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

penalty proceedings under section 270A for the year under consideration. Later, when the partner of the assessee firm was stabilized, he has rejoined the activities of the firm in the month of July, 2022, then he realized about non-filing of the appeal against the appellate order dated 25.11.2021. Soon thereafter, he contacted our chartered accountant for this purpose

BRIJ BIHARI DUBEY EDUCATIONAL TRUST,GORAKHPUR vs. THE DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2014-15 Brij Bihari Dubey Educational Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner C-251, Budh Vihar, Taramandal, Of Income Tax-Cpc, Gorakhpur-273001, Uttar Pradesh Bangalore Pan-Aabtb7657D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Subhash Chand, Adv & Sh. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2023 O R D E R

disallowing the claim of exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act but the CPC has not reduced the corresponding expenditure from the gross receipts while computing the total income assessed to tax. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision dated 30.04.2015 of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bharat

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)

penalty for defaults, addition of Rs. 1,28,680-00 in the guise of sec. 36(1)va still "res-integra", amounts to double jeopardy. 5. Because, responsibility to pay both part of the contributions are by Para - 30(1) EPF Scheme as well as sec. 40(1) of the ESI Act is over the Employer which

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

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 7. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) and contended that the AO has assessed the interest on FDR as income from other sources instead of part of net profit. It was contended that the assessee is a civil contractor