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)

2,28,690/-. The return of income was processed by CPC under section 143(1) , wherein addition of Rs. 1,28,680/- was made while processing return of income under section 143(1) by disallowing

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

disallowed the claim of exemption and assessed the total receipts as total income of the assessee. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) on 27.7.2022 against the order under section 143(1) of the Act dated 27.03.2017 of CPC. Therefore, there was a delay of 1950 days’ in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee filed

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

section 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

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

section 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

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

section 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

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

section 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

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

section 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

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

section 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

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

2)), 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. 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

M/S RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA,AZAMGARH vs. ACIT, RANGE - AZAMGARH, AZAMGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Sarfuddinpur, Near Railway Tax, Range-Azamgarh Station, Azamgarh-276001 Pan-Aakfr2986A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh.Hari N. Singh Bisen, C.A. Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.02.2023

143(2) was issued by the Assessing Officer on 12.09.2014. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act and then estimated the business income by excluding the interest income on FDR which was separately assessed as income from other sources. Accordingly, the net profit was estimated

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

section 69C are not applicable as far as the additions of Rs.17,19,275/- and Rs.9,07,100/- are concerned. Consequently, ground No. 2 of appeal is allowed. As far as the disallowance of Rs.1,38,143

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, VARANASI vs. NEONATAL HEALTH ACADEMY, VARANASI

In the result, for statistical purposes, both appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

143(3) read with section 144B of the I. T. Act on 28/09/2021 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,67,74,462/-, disallowing the assessee’s claim of conference and seminar expenses amounting to Rs.2,34,93,962/-. The disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee did not furnish

INCOME TAX OFFICER, VARANASI vs. NEONATAL HEALTH ACADEMY, VARANASI

In the result, for statistical purposes, both appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

143(3) read with section 144B of the I. T. Act on 28/09/2021 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,67,74,462/-, disallowing the assessee’s claim of conference and seminar expenses amounting to Rs.2,34,93,962/-. The disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee did not furnish

VIMAL MISHRA,VARANASI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE -3 VARANASI, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

2. Because, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified to consider the documents which has duly been submitted along with submissions and invoice no., date and payment details has already mentioned and also submitted the confirmatory statement of account duly signed by the party. 3. Because, the appellant craves for a right to raise any additional ground

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)

2. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Jute bags, hessian, sutli and other jute products. 3. We shall first take up cross appeals and the cross objection pertaining to AY 2009-10. The revenue carried out survey operation u/s 133A of the Act on 03-02-2009. Consequent thereto, the assessment was completed