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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

14 onwards (as appearing herein for), it is apparent that the Id. Assessing Officer has violated the settled rules and principles governing best judgment assessment by invoking of provisions of section 144 of the Act. Express provisions of law as contained in section 144, does not permit such an arbitrary additions/disallowances as stand incorporated in ex- parte order under section

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

disallowing the claim of exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act but the CPC has not reduced the corresponding expenditure from the gross receipts while computing the total income assessed to tax. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision dated 30.04.2015 of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bharat

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) The following shall have the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal- (a) the appellant, either in person or by an authorized representative ; (b) The Assessing Officer , either in person or by a representative. *** *** *** ***” Fair hearing and adherence of principles of natural justice are the most important pillars of the judicial proceedings , and proceedings before

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

section 145(2) is also a decision inasmuch as it amounts to un acceptance of the method of accounting on the ground that the income, profits and gains can be properly deduced therefrom. It is therefore open to the AAC to reject the assessee's books of account which have been accepted by the ITO. Hence, the books of account

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

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

2. Because it was fully explained that the purchase and sales of petrol and diesel i.e. petroleum product against cash were allowed during demonetization period and therefore, the provision of section 69A/69C of the Act is not applicable on the deposit in bank account during demonetization period. The learned Assessing Officer has erred and acted illegally in not placing reliance

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)

14. The next legal contention is that the selection of return of income of the assessee for scrutiny under Computer Aided Scrutiny Scheme (CASS) is bad in law, since it is contrary to the provisions of sec.143(2)(ii) of the Act. However, before us, the assessee could not substantiate the above said legal contention. Accordingly, we reject this ground

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)

14. The next legal contention is that the selection of return of income of the assessee for scrutiny under Computer Aided Scrutiny Scheme (CASS) is bad in law, since it is contrary to the provisions of sec.143(2)(ii) of the Act. However, before us, the assessee could not substantiate the above said legal contention. Accordingly, we reject this ground

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)

14. The next legal contention is that the selection of return of income of the assessee for scrutiny under Computer Aided Scrutiny Scheme (CASS) is bad in law, since it is contrary to the provisions of sec.143(2)(ii) of the Act. However, before us, the assessee could not substantiate the above said legal contention. Accordingly, we reject this 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)

14. The next legal contention is that the selection of return of income of the assessee for scrutiny under Computer Aided Scrutiny Scheme (CASS) is bad in law, since it is contrary to the provisions of sec.143(2)(ii) of the Act. However, before us, the assessee could not substantiate the above said legal contention. Accordingly, we reject this ground

SHAMIMUL FATIMA,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 02, GORAKHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of benefit of exemption u/s 54F of ₹ 93,94,816/-. P a g e | 2 AY 2013-14 Shamimul Fatima 3.The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and had declared netlong term capital gain at ₹1,40,30,177/-. Which was claim as exemption

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

section 36(1)(va) Sr. No. Nature of Sum received Due date of The actual The actual fund from payment amount paid date of employees payment to the concerned authorities 1. Any Fund set 19242 21.05.2616 19242 20.05.2016 up under the provisions of ESI Act, 1948 2 Any Fund set 21652 21.06.2016 21652 20.06.2016 up under the provisions

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)

disallowance . Hence, the appeal is made.” 5b. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, vide appellate order dated 19.11.2019, by holding as under: “Decision: Notices dated 11.09.2017, 17.11.2017,18.12.2017 , 15.05.2018 , 30.01.2019 , 25.07.2019 , 07.09.2018, 12.10.2019 and 09.11.2019 fixing the date for compliance on 21.09.2017 , 29.11.2017 , I.T.A. No.124/VNS/2020 Shri Rishikesh Shukla v. ITO, Ward-III(1) Mirzapur