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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 142(1) dated 25th July, 23019 was issued by the AO asking for the details but again there is no compliance which is as under: “(1) Please substantiate with credible evidence/s Loan from Others amounting Rs.2,73,59,647/-, Others Payables amounting Rs.30 19 86,328/- as shown by you in the Balance Sheet

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)

10 of the paper book , and submitted that it is the employer’s responsibility to deposit the employer contribution as well as employee contribution with the fund, within the due date. The employer is entitled to recover the employee contribution from the salary of the employee. He referred to provisions of Section 43B of the Act. The ld. Counsel

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

2) (II) FURTHR CBDT ISSUED “circular no. 6/2010 (F. NO. 173 (3)/44/2009-IT (A-l) DATED 20.09.2010 C to give more and more clarity on 80P deduction. Therefore, the assessee is assessed as status of AOP. From aforesaid discussion it is held that assesseee is not entitled for deduction u/s 80P (1) of LT. Act and claiming disallowed and added

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

2) (II) FURTHR CBDT ISSUED “circular no. 6/2010 (F. NO. 173 (3)/44/2009-IT (A-l) DATED 20.09.2010 C to give more and more clarity on 80P deduction. Therefore, the assessee is assessed as status of AOP. From aforesaid discussion it is held that assesseee is not entitled for deduction u/s 80P (1) of LT. Act and claiming disallowed and added

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

2) (II) FURTHR CBDT ISSUED “circular no. 6/2010 (F. NO. 173 (3)/44/2009-IT (A-l) DATED 20.09.2010 C to give more and more clarity on 80P deduction. Therefore, the assessee is assessed as status of AOP. From aforesaid discussion it is held that assesseee is not entitled for deduction u/s 80P (1) of LT. Act and claiming disallowed and added

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

2) (II) FURTHR CBDT ISSUED “circular no. 6/2010 (F. NO. 173 (3)/44/2009-IT (A-l) DATED 20.09.2010 C to give more and more clarity on 80P deduction. Therefore, the assessee is assessed as status of AOP. From aforesaid discussion it is held that assesseee is not entitled for deduction u/s 80P (1) of LT. Act and claiming disallowed and added

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

2) (II) FURTHR CBDT ISSUED “circular no. 6/2010 (F. NO. 173 (3)/44/2009-IT (A-l) DATED 20.09.2010 C to give more and more clarity on 80P deduction. Therefore, the assessee is assessed as status of AOP. From aforesaid discussion it is held that assesseee is not entitled for deduction u/s 80P (1) of LT. Act and claiming disallowed and added

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

2) (II) FURTHR CBDT ISSUED “circular no. 6/2010 (F. NO. 173 (3)/44/2009-IT (A-l) DATED 20.09.2010 C to give more and more clarity on 80P deduction. Therefore, the assessee is assessed as status of AOP. From aforesaid discussion it is held that assesseee is not entitled for deduction u/s 80P (1) of LT. Act and claiming disallowed and added

M/S AVANTIKA INFRAVENTURE (P) LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

10,134/- made by the Ld. AO in respect of interest on loan advanced to the sister concern of the assessee. 2. Because the Ld. Lower Authority has erred in making addition of Rs.10,134/- for interest of loan advanced to M/s Tulsiani Construction and Developers (P) Ltd. claiming that the loan has been made out of interest bearing funds

M/S AVANTIKA INFRAVENTURE (P) LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

10,134/- made by the Ld. AO in respect of interest on loan advanced to the sister concern of the assessee. 2. Because the Ld. Lower Authority has erred in making addition of Rs.10,134/- for interest of loan advanced to M/s Tulsiani Construction and Developers (P) Ltd. claiming that the loan has been made out of interest bearing funds

KAHM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,VARANASI vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year:2018-19 M/S Kahm Properties Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dc/Acit B-21/192, Kamaccha Central Circle Varanasai Varanasi Tan/Pan:Aacck7739F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri V. K. Jindal Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26 09 2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 09 2023

2) A person shall be considered to have under-reported his income, if— (a) the income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return processed under clause (a) of sub- section (1) of section 143; (b) the income assessed is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, where no return of income has been furnished

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

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

disallowance of penalties and other payments made for infraction of law(Section 37(1)) , etc. etc. and so on and so forth, which has further bearing on computing income of the tax- payers chargeable to tax. The purpose of framing scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act is , inter-alia, to see that the assessee is maintaining proper

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.

Section 250(2) of the 1961 Act, which reads as under: “Procedure in appeal 250. (1) *** *** *** *** (2) The following shall have the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal- (a) the appellant, either in person or by an authorized representative ; (b) The Assessing Officer , either in person or by a representative. *** *** *** ***” Fair hearing and adherence of principles

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

Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act”). 2. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Varanasi (hereinafter called “the tribunal”), reads as under: 1 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Banaras Swarn Kala Kendra Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT, Central Circle, Varanasi 1. Because

AWADHESH KUMAR,BALLIA vs. ITO, WARD - 2(4), BALLIA

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2016-17 Awadhesh Kumar, V. Income Tax Officer, Arya Samaj Road, Ballia, Ward-2(4), Ballia, U.P. Uttar Pradesh Pan-Athpk1294N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022 O R D E R

disallowed by the Assessing Officer and his action confirmed by the CIT(A) is highly unjustified. 6. That in any view of the matter finding an observation of both the two lower authorities with regard to addition of Rs. 8,32,507/- and Rs. 84,000/- are incorrect and contrary to the actual facts of the case. 7. That

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)

10% of expenses, i.e., Rs.7,20,834/- on adhoc basis. However, we notice that the AO did not add the above said disallowance while computing total income. 17.2 The Ld CIT(A) agreed with the submissions of the assessee that adhoc disallowance was not permitted under law. He also expressed the view that the failure to deduct TDS should have

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)

10% of expenses, i.e., Rs.7,20,834/- on adhoc basis. However, we notice that the AO did not add the above said disallowance while computing total income. 17.2 The Ld CIT(A) agreed with the submissions of the assessee that adhoc disallowance was not permitted under law. He also expressed the view that the failure to deduct TDS should have