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

4) of the Act. The AO accordingly disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P to the assessee. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) but could not succeeded as the CIT(A) has upheld the order of the AO denying the claim of deduction under section 80P. 3. Before the Tribunal, the learned

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

4) of the Act. The AO accordingly disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P to the assessee. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) but could not succeeded as the CIT(A) has upheld the order of the AO denying the claim of deduction under section 80P. 3. Before the Tribunal, the learned

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

section 233B47 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), also the report under that section]; (f) where regular books of account are not maintained by the assessee, the return is accompanied by a statement indicating the amounts of turnover or, as the case may be, gross receipts, gross profit, expenses and net profit of the business or profession

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

section 233B47 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), also the report under that section]; (f) where regular books of account are not maintained by the assessee, the return is accompanied by a statement indicating the amounts of turnover or, as the case may be, gross receipts, gross profit, expenses and net profit of the business or profession

M.W.S. & CO.,BHADOHI vs. DY. C.I.T., RANGE - 1, VARANASI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M.W.S. & Co., Naya Bazar V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Road, Bhadohi-221401, Uttar Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Pradesh, India Bengaluru [Jurisdictional Assessing Pan-Aaffm2003E Officer Being Dy./Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Varanasi, U.P. (Appellant) (Respondent)

4-1984, expressly commences with a non obstante clause, the underlying object being to disallow deductions claimed merely by making a Book entry based on Mercantile System of Accounting. At the same time, section 43B [main section] made it mandatory for the Department to grant deduction in computing the income under section M.W.S. & Co. 28 in the year in which

M.W.S. & CO.,BHADOHI vs. DY. C.I.T., RANGE - 1, VARANASI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M.W.S. & Co., Naya Bazar V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Road, Bhadohi-221401, Uttar Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Pradesh, India Bengaluru [Jurisdictional Assessing Pan-Aaffm2003E Officer Being Dy./Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Varanasi, U.P. (Appellant) (Respondent)

4-1984, expressly commences with a non obstante clause, the underlying object being to disallow deductions claimed merely by making a Book entry based on Mercantile System of Accounting. At the same time, section 43B [main section] made it mandatory for the Department to grant deduction in computing the income under section M.W.S. & Co. 28 in the year in which

BHUPENDRA NATH PANDEY,VARANASI vs. ACIT, R - 03, VARANASI

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Bhupendra Nath Pandey Assistant Director Of Income 6-159/27, Kashi Enclave V. Tax (Cpc), Centralized Colony, Pahadiya Sarnath, Processing Center , Varanasi-221007, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (The Acit, Range-3, Varanasi, U.P.) Pan:Ajfpp1273J (Appellant) (Respondent)

4 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bhupendra Kumar Pandey amendment made by Parliament to Section 36(1)(va) and 43B of the 1961 Act wherein Explanation 2 and 5 respectively were added to aforesaid sections, the matter is set to rest and the authorities below have rightly decided the issue against the assessee, and prayers were made to uphold the additions

M/S RUGS MART,VARANASI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 03, VARANASI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesseeis in ITA No

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Rugs Mart Deputy Commissioner Of Barhi Ewada V. Income Tax (Cpc), Centralized District Varanasi-221207 Processing Center , U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (The Dcit , Circle-3, Varanasi, U.P.) Pan:Aalfr4883R (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

LAWKUSH SHARMA,SONEBHADRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3 (5), SONEBHADRA

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Lawkush Sharma Assistant Director Of Income 14-495, V.V. Colony, V. Tax (Cpc), Centralized Shakti Nagar, Sonebhadra- Processing Center , 231222, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 Pan:Artps9822Q (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

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

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

139 and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub- section (5) of that section, or • fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or fails to comply with a direction issued under sub-section (2A) of that section, or • having made

MIRZA ARIF BEG,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 1, GORAKHPUR

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh.Vijay Pal Rao & Hon’Ble Sh. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2014-15 Mirza Arif Beg, V. Commissioner Of Income Tax, H. No. 184-B, New Colony, New Range-1, Gorakhpur Beniganj Chowk, Jafra Bazar, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan-Abxpb6421C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Subhash Chand, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.05.2022

139(4), then the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act. The learned AR has further contended that the assessee invested the money in construction of the residential house within the period as prescribed under section 54F and merely because construction was not completed in all respect, the deduction under section 54F cannot

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

139(1) of the Act on 27.9.2018, declaring an income of Rs.2,72,280/-. A survey under section 133A of the Act was :-2-: conducted on 2.7.2019 on the business premises of the assessee. In the survey proceedings, the assessee admitted certain undisclosed income, amounting to Rs.15,89,684/- on account of undisclosed rent received on lawn booking. The assessee

AMARESH PANDEY,SONEBHADRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 (5), SONEBHADRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2010-11 Amaresh Pandey, V. Income Tax Officer, Ghuash Road, Ward 20, Range-Sonebhadra Robertsganj, Sonebhadra-231216 Pan-Ajfpp6965K (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

4. That in the any view of the matter the addition of Rs. 11,80,000/- out of cash deposit in bank account by alleging unexplained cash deposit as made by the assessing officer and confirm by CIT appeal (National Faceless Appeal Centre) is highly unjustified. 5. That in the any view of the matter the addition