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

3) read with Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. Statutory notices under Sections 143(2)/142(1) of the 1961 Act were issued by AO from time to time. During course of assessment proceedings, the assessee appeared before AO and filed replies and details, produced books of accounts, bills andvouchers, which were test checked by AO. The solitary question

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

3) read with Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. Statutory notices under Sections 143(2)/142(1) of the 1961 Act were issued by AO from time to time. During course of assessment proceedings, the assessee appeared before AO and filed replies and details, produced books of accounts, bills andvouchers, which were test checked by AO. The solitary question

ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BAJRANG BAHADUR SINGH, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, Commissioner Of Income V. Marhatha, Campierganj, Tax,Circle-1, Gorakhpur-273001, Uttar Aayakarbhawan, Civil Pradesh Lines, Gorakhpur 273001, Uttar Pradesh Pan:Afxps6284G (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of depreciation claimed by the assessee, vide assessment order dated 12.12.2017 passed by AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 263 of the 1961 Act. The AO observed that the assessee has shown addition in the fixed assets in Plant and Machinery (Tippers 3 Numbers) at Rs. 44,96,000/- , but the assessee did not submitted any proof

BLOSSAM HOUSE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,VARANASI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(1), VARANASI

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 Blossam House Educational V. Income Tax Officer, Society, 579, Teliabagh, Church Ward-3(1), Varanasi Compound, Maldahiya, Varanasi Pan-Aaatb7686D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Atul Choudhary, C.A. Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.07.2022 O R D E R

disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable to the assessee for the year under consideration as the amendment to section 11 by way of inserting Explanation 3

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

11 and 12) exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, furnish a return of such income of the previous year in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and all the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply

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

11 and 12) exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, furnish a return of such income of the previous year in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and all the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply

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)

11. The next issue urged by the revenue relates to the disallowance of loss of Rs.61,84,000/- arising in Syntax division. 11.1 The AO noticed that the assessee had declared total income of Rs.243.64 lakhs for the year relevant to AY 2008-09, while it has declared total income of Rs.38.19 lakhs only in the current year. The assessee

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)

11. The next issue urged by the revenue relates to the disallowance of loss of Rs.61,84,000/- arising in Syntax division. 11.1 The AO noticed that the assessee had declared total income of Rs.243.64 lakhs for the year relevant to AY 2008-09, while it has declared total income of Rs.38.19 lakhs only in the current year. The assessee

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)

11. The next issue urged by the revenue relates to the disallowance of loss of Rs.61,84,000/- arising in Syntax division. 11.1 The AO noticed that the assessee had declared total income of Rs.243.64 lakhs for the year relevant to AY 2008-09, while it has declared total income of Rs.38.19 lakhs only in the current year. The assessee

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)

11. The next issue urged by the revenue relates to the disallowance of loss of Rs.61,84,000/- arising in Syntax division. 11.1 The AO noticed that the assessee had declared total income of Rs.243.64 lakhs for the year relevant to AY 2008-09, while it has declared total income of Rs.38.19 lakhs only in the current year. The assessee

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

11-11-2019 but, there has been no compliance again. You are aware that the proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act is time barred by limitation. As you have not complied with the notices u/s 142(1) of the Act/ show cause notice it appears that you do not wish to explain your case. You were requested to substantiate

N.E. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES MULTI STATE PRIMARY COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 01, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2009-

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Hon’Ble Sh. Ramit Kocharay: 2009-10 Ay: 2013-14 Ay: 2014-15 N.E. Railway Employees Multi State V. Acit, Primary Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Range-1, Gorakhpur Railway Colony, Mohaddipur Road, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan-Aaajn0595P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Anil Kumar Pandey, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.06.2022 O R D E R

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P and added the amount of Rs. 37,28,310/- to the total income of the assessee. Though the Assessing Officer has also made an addition of Rs. 5,56,855/- on account of a provision for bad and doubtful dates made by the N.E. Railway Employees Multi State Primary Co-operative Bank

N.E. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES MULTI STATE PRIMARY CO-OPRATIVE BANK LTD., ,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 01,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2009-

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Hon’Ble Sh. Ramit Kocharay: 2009-10 Ay: 2013-14 Ay: 2014-15 N.E. Railway Employees Multi State V. Acit, Primary Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Range-1, Gorakhpur Railway Colony, Mohaddipur Road, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan-Aaajn0595P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Anil Kumar Pandey, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.06.2022 O R D E R

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P and added the amount of Rs. 37,28,310/- to the total income of the assessee. Though the Assessing Officer has also made an addition of Rs. 5,56,855/- on account of a provision for bad and doubtful dates made by the N.E. Railway Employees Multi State Primary Co-operative Bank

N.E. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES MULTI STATE PRIMARY COOPARATIVE BANK LTD.,,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 01,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2009-

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Hon’Ble Sh. Ramit Kocharay: 2009-10 Ay: 2013-14 Ay: 2014-15 N.E. Railway Employees Multi State V. Acit, Primary Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Range-1, Gorakhpur Railway Colony, Mohaddipur Road, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan-Aaajn0595P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Anil Kumar Pandey, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.06.2022 O R D E R

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P and added the amount of Rs. 37,28,310/- to the total income of the assessee. Though the Assessing Officer has also made an addition of Rs. 5,56,855/- on account of a provision for bad and doubtful dates made by the N.E. Railway Employees Multi State Primary Co-operative Bank

UTKARSH SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD.,VARANASI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Utkarsh Small Finance National E-Assessment Centre, Bank Limited V. Delhi S-24/1-2, First Floor, Mahavir Nagar, Orderly Bazar, Near Mahavir Mandir, Varanasi- 221001, U.P. Pan:Aabcu9355J (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallow the said amount by invoking Explanation 1 to Section 36(1)(va) of the 1961 Act but the said amount admittedly stood deposited by assessee to the credit of employee with relevant fund before the time prescribed for filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the 1961 Act. Aggrieved by an assessment framed

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

3,467/- c) Total Disallowance in case of TCDL Rs. 10,134/- Therefore, total disallowance on account of section 36(i)(iii) of the Act, turns out to be Rs. 12,10,134/-. In light of the facts presented in preceding paras, proportionate amount is being disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings

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

3,467/- c) Total Disallowance in case of TCDL Rs. 10,134/- Therefore, total disallowance on account of section 36(i)(iii) of the Act, turns out to be Rs. 12,10,134/-. In light of the facts presented in preceding paras, proportionate amount is being disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings

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