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.

disallowed 10% of the total unregistered purchases which were treated as deemed income of the assessee and brought to tax by AO under Section 69C of the 1961 Act, which stood added by the AO to the total income of the assessee u/s 69C for taxation at the rate of 60% as provided u/s 115BBE

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

31,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained money/cash deposits u/s 69A of the Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred indeleting the addition of Rs. 9,83,50,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplainedmoney/cash deposits

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 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

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

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

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

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 Fatima 3.The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and had declared netlong term capital gain at ₹1,40,30,177/-. Which was claim as exemption