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)

section 143(1) by disallowing the deduction under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of Rs. 1,28,680/- towards

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

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

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.

1. During the Course of Survey proceedings u/s 133A conducted on 05.10.2018, in your statement u/s 133A which was recorded on 05/10/2018(sic. 05.10.2017) in Q. 21, you were asked to explain undisclosed profit in your accounts during the FY 2016- 17 on the basis of data retrieved from your computer amounting to Rs 6,81,81,364/- in reference

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

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

143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. In all the appeals, the common ground raised by the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of claim of deduction of rs.9,91,23,980/- under section

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

143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. In all the appeals, the common ground raised by the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of claim of deduction of rs.9,91,23,980/- under section

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

143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. In all the appeals, the common ground raised by the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of claim of deduction of rs.9,91,23,980/- under section

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

143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. In all the appeals, the common ground raised by the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of claim of deduction of rs.9,91,23,980/- under section

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

143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. In all the appeals, the common ground raised by the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of claim of deduction of rs.9,91,23,980/- under section

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

143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. In all the appeals, the common ground raised by the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of claim of deduction of rs.9,91,23,980/- under section

CHAMRU RAM,CHANDAULI vs. DC/ACIT, CIRCLE - 3, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

1)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 69C are not attracted in respect of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained expenses under I.T.A. No.14/VNS/2023 Assessment Year:2017-18 3 head compensation to employees/salary and wages or the issue is required to be set aside to the record

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)

143(3) of the Act, interest u/s 234B and 234D were levied at Rs. 3,61,224/- and Rs. 20,218/- respectively, on grant of relief as aforesaid there will be consequential reduction in interest u/s 234B and 234D. The appellant is aggrieved by the aforesaid additions and/or disallowance . Hence, the appeal is made.” 5b. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed

OBEETEE TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,MIRZAPUR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER, DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Br Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaobeetee Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Faceless 93, Ward-9, Assessment Centre, Bisunderpur, Civil Lines, Delhi Mirzapur, Uttarpradesh-231312 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaco2596C Appellant .. Respondent

143(1) of the Act,the amount of depreciation which have been allowed has been worked out at ₹ 3,66,86,178/-,resulting into short allowance of ₹ 3,39,505/-. The DRP had already given direction for correction of mathematical error to the AO, which effect has not yet to be given. Accordingly, he pleaded that AO may be directed

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)

143(1) is amounted to assessment and hence the subsequent assessment order is illegal as being void ab-initio. This legal contention is liable to be rejected, as it is settled principle that the intimation is not considered as an assessment. 14. The next legal contention is that the selection of return of income of the assessee for scrutiny under

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)

143(1) is amounted to assessment and hence the subsequent assessment order is illegal as being void ab-initio. This legal contention is liable to be rejected, as it is settled principle that the intimation is not considered as an assessment. 14. The next legal contention is that the selection of return of income of the assessee for scrutiny under

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)

143(1) is amounted to assessment and hence the subsequent assessment order is illegal as being void ab-initio. This legal contention is liable to be rejected, as it is settled principle that the intimation is not considered as an assessment. 14. The next legal contention is that the selection of return of income of the assessee for scrutiny under

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)

143(1) is amounted to assessment and hence the subsequent assessment order is illegal as being void ab-initio. This legal contention is liable to be rejected, as it is settled principle that the intimation is not considered as an assessment. 14. The next legal contention is that the selection of return of income of the assessee for scrutiny under