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

iii) The basic composition of assessee bank is very close to composition of a company. iv) Regional Rural Bank Act prohibits introduction of any other shareholder. v) Regional Rural Bank is a profit earning organization whereas a co-operative society is a non-profit entity functioning on the principles of mutuality. vi) The assessee bank is functioning at par with

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

iii) The basic composition of assessee bank is very close to composition of a company. iv) Regional Rural Bank Act prohibits introduction of any other shareholder. v) Regional Rural Bank is a profit earning organization whereas a co-operative society is a non-profit entity functioning on the principles of mutuality. vi) The assessee bank is functioning at par with

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

iii) The basic composition of assessee bank is very close to composition of a company. iv) Regional Rural Bank Act prohibits introduction of any other shareholder. v) Regional Rural Bank is a profit earning organization whereas a co-operative society is a non-profit entity functioning on the principles of mutuality. vi) The assessee bank is functioning at par with

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

iii) The basic composition of assessee bank is very close to composition of a company. iv) Regional Rural Bank Act prohibits introduction of any other shareholder. v) Regional Rural Bank is a profit earning organization whereas a co-operative society is a non-profit entity functioning on the principles of mutuality. vi) The assessee bank is functioning at par with

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

iii) The basic composition of assessee bank is very close to composition of a company. iv) Regional Rural Bank Act prohibits introduction of any other shareholder. v) Regional Rural Bank is a profit earning organization whereas a co-operative society is a non-profit entity functioning on the principles of mutuality. vi) The assessee bank is functioning at par with

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

iii. Judgment and order of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of K. Mohammed v. ITO , reported in the case of (1977)107 ITR 808(Ker.) iv. Judgment and order of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Ranicherra Tea Co. Limited, reported in (1994)75 TAXMAN 164(Cal.) v. Judgment and order

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.

2. Apart from this during the Course of survey proceedings in your statement u/s 133 recorded on 05.10.2018(sic. 05.10.2017) for Q 23 you were asked to explain the difference in investment under the sub head furniture and fixture in B/S a difference of Rs 43.00 Lacs was noted and in answer to Q.23 you have offered total amount

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)

10,000/- on 25.02.2020(i.e. within limitation period) albeit appeal was not filed with tribunal within limitation period , as there I.T.A. No.124/VNS/2020 Shri Rishikesh Shukla v. ITO, Ward-III(1) Mirzapur 4 was COVID-19 disease prevailing at that time which has hampered the normal working and has caused havoc on the life and livelihood of the people across Globe

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

disallowances forming basis of penalty made at assessment stage are on account of deliberate, malafide intention of the assessee to conceal the particulars or nor furnished inaccurate particulars. 5. Because on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in upholding levying penalty of Rs. 2