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)

Section 68 inasmuch as it is not in dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases and the trading results were accepted by the AO. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 8.7 Since the assessing officer, in the instant case, has assessed trade

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)

Section 68 inasmuch as it is not in dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases and the trading results were accepted by the AO. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 8.7 Since the assessing officer, in the instant case, has assessed trade

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)

Section 68 inasmuch as it is not in dispute that the creditors outstanding related to purchases and the trading results were accepted by the AO. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 8.7 Since the assessing officer, in the instant case, has assessed trade

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

17, 21, 24 and 22 all of 2022 arise from the Penalty orders under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the aforesaid assessment years. 3. It has been admitted before us that the respondent- assessee is a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. It has also been admitted before as that the respondent/assessee

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

17, 21, 24 and 22 all of 2022 arise from the Penalty orders under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the aforesaid assessment years. 3. It has been admitted before us that the respondent- assessee is a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. It has also been admitted before as that the respondent/assessee

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

17, 21, 24 and 22 all of 2022 arise from the Penalty orders under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the aforesaid assessment years. 3. It has been admitted before us that the respondent- assessee is a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. It has also been admitted before as that the respondent/assessee

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

17, 21, 24 and 22 all of 2022 arise from the Penalty orders under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the aforesaid assessment years. 3. It has been admitted before us that the respondent- assessee is a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. It has also been admitted before as that the respondent/assessee

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

17, 21, 24 and 22 all of 2022 arise from the Penalty orders under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the aforesaid assessment years. 3. It has been admitted before us that the respondent- assessee is a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. It has also been admitted before as that the respondent/assessee

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

17, 21, 24 and 22 all of 2022 arise from the Penalty orders under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the aforesaid assessment years. 3. It has been admitted before us that the respondent- assessee is a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. It has also been admitted before as that the respondent/assessee

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)

3. Because learned the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred both in law and on facts in of by confirming penalty Rs.2,13,250/- levied assessing officer under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without affording proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 4. Because on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

17,45,610-2,02,545] (Confirmed) as reflectedin 26AS. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred indeleting the aforesaid additions without providing an opportunity of being heard to theAO as the assessment has been concluded u/s 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7. Right is reserve to alter

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 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 of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication ?” (B.1) The Hon'ble Third Member

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

17 taxman.com 257 as relied before the CIT(A) being the part of statement of facts. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR has submitted that every assessment year is separate and distinct from each other. The CIT(A) simply allowed the assessee’s claim for the assessment year 2007-08 without properly examining the issue and without recording

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.

17 on the basis of data retrieved from your computer amounting to Rs 6,81,81,364/- in reference to which you have surrendered an undisclosed income of Rs 5.00 Crores and made an statement that the due taxes with interest will be deposited within a week but you failed to do so. Furthermore while going through return of income

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

disallowance of ₹ 3,39,505/-. 5. The next issue relates to deposits made in government account under Employees State Insurance Act 1948, on account of employees' P a g e | 3 AY 2017-18 OBEETEE TEXTILES PVT LTD. contribution to ESI for the months of January and February 2017, respective particulars are extracted herein below:- Details of Contributions received from

SHRI OM PRAKASH JAISWAL, PROP. M/S. JAISWAL TRADING COMPANY, ,GORAKHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GORAKHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

disallowed. Accordingly we set aside the order passed the learned CIT(A) on the issue of gross profit and direct the Assessing Officer to sustain the addition to the extent of Rs.1,09,948/- and delete the balance amount of Rs. 6,99,387/-, 4. The next issue relates to the addition of trading liability of Rs.5,17,500/-. During

OM PRAKASH JAISWAL,,GORAKHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, GORAKHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

disallowed. Accordingly we set aside the order passed the learned CIT(A) on the issue of gross profit and direct the Assessing Officer to sustain the addition to the extent of Rs.1,09,948/- and delete the balance amount of Rs. 6,99,387/-, 4. The next issue relates to the addition of trading liability of Rs.5,17,500/-. During