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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 23(3)." **** **** **** **** "In this case we are of the opinion that the Tribunal violated certain fundamental rules of justice in reaching its conclusions. Firstly, it did not disclose to the assessee what information had been supplied to it by the departmental representative. Next, it did not give any opportunity to the company to rebut the material furnished

M/S THE KASHI SAHKARI CHINI CHINI MILLS LTD.,,BHADOHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, VARANASI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The Kashi Sahkari Chini, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mills Ltd., V. Circle-1, Aurai, Bhadohi, Varanasi. U.P. Pan:Aaaat7921J (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing interest aggregating to Rs. 6,06,86,570/- by invoking provisions of section 43B of the Act. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID 3. Because the amount of interest of Rs 6,06,86,570/- claimed by the appellant on account of loan taken by it from Cooperative Sugar Mills Revolving Cess Nidhi (an altogether a separate entity) does

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

disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs. 1,85,572/- is concerned, the tribunal dismissed the ground raised by asessee as not being pressed. The order of the tribunal dated 05.01.2021 is reproduced hereunder: “4. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that a search & seizure operation

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

disallowance of Rs.41,802/- out of interest income as made by the assessing officer and confirm by CIT appeal (National Faceless Appeal Centre) is highly unjustified. 7. That in any view of the matter the appellant reserves her right to take any fresh ground before hearing of the appeal.” 2. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that originally

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

144 to meet the limitation period as prescribed under the statute. It is a matter of record that very low percentage of returns of income are selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment .The 1961 Act is an code in itself and there are several provisions under the 1961 Act 9 Assessment Year: 2017-18 DCIT, Circle-1, Varanasi

SINGHAL AGENCIES,AZAMGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(4), AZAMGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

144 of the Act at an income of Rs.9,15,252/-, Aggrieved by the said assessment order, appellant firm preferred an appeal before the first Appellate Authority under section 246A of the Act. In order to substantiate its stand against addition so made by the ld. Assessing Officer, the appellant firm filed its submission before the first Appellate Authority