VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASEE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

15) of the Act and accordingly it was entitled to exemption under section 211 of the Act. 6. Because the case of VDA/appellant is frequently covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT (Exemption), Lucknow vs. Moradabad Development Authority, Moradabad in ITA No. 3 of 2017, dated 05.05.2017 which in turn was based

M/S. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), VARANASI

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

15) of the Act and accordingly it was entitled to exemption under section 211 of the Act. 6. Because the case of VDA/appellant is frequently covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT (Exemption), Lucknow vs. Moradabad Development Authority, Moradabad in ITA No. 3 of 2017, dated 05.05.2017 which in turn was based

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 2, VARANASI

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 233B47 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), also the report under that section]; (f) where regular books of account are not maintained by the assessee, the return is accompanied by a statement indicating the amounts of turnover or, as the case may be, gross receipts, gross profit, expenses and net profit of the business or profession

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 02,, VARANASI

In the result , the appeal filed the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 233B47 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), also the report under that section]; (f) where regular books of account are not maintained by the assessee, the return is accompanied by a statement indicating the amounts of turnover or, as the case may be, gross receipts, gross profit, expenses and net profit of the business or profession

M/S RUGS MART,VARANASI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 03, VARANASI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesseeis in ITA No

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Rugs Mart Deputy Commissioner Of Barhi Ewada V. Income Tax (Cpc), Centralized District Varanasi-221207 Processing Center , U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (The Dcit , Circle-3, Varanasi, U.P.) Pan:Aalfr4883R (Appellant) (Respondent)

2(24) and sub-clause (va) of Section 36(1) and would not be affected by Section 43B. Section 43B though a non-obstante clause, makes deductions to be allowable only on actual payment; when such deductions are otherwise allowable. Primarily it is to be noticed that it is a restrictive clause, the amendments to which or the deletion

LAWKUSH SHARMA,SONEBHADRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3 (5), SONEBHADRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Lawkush Sharma Assistant Director Of Income 14-495, V.V. Colony, V. Tax (Cpc), Centralized Shakti Nagar, Sonebhadra- Processing Center , 231222, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 Pan:Artps9822Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

2(24) and sub-clause (va) of Section 36(1) and would not be affected by Section 43B. Section 43B though a non-obstante clause, makes deductions to be allowable only on actual payment; when such deductions are otherwise allowable. Primarily it is to be noticed that it is a restrictive clause, the amendments to which or the deletion

BHUPENDRA NATH PANDEY,VARANASI vs. ACIT, R - 03, VARANASI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Bhupendra Nath Pandey Assistant Director Of Income 6-159/27, Kashi Enclave V. Tax (Cpc), Centralized Colony, Pahadiya Sarnath, Processing Center , Varanasi-221007, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (The Acit, Range-3, Varanasi, U.P.) Pan:Ajfpp1273J (Appellant) (Respondent)

2(24) and sub-clause 27 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bhupendra Kumar Pandey (va) of Section 36(1) and would not be affected by Section 43B. Section 43B though a non-obstante clause, makes deductions to be allowable only on actual payment; when such deductions are otherwise allowable. Primarily it is to be noticed that it is a restrictive clause

UTKARSH SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD.,VARANASI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Utkarsh Small Finance National E-Assessment Centre, Bank Limited V. Delhi S-24/1-2, First Floor, Mahavir Nagar, Orderly Bazar, Near Mahavir Mandir, Varanasi- 221001, U.P. Pan:Aabcu9355J (Appellant) (Respondent)

2(24) and sub-clause (va) of Section 36(1) and would not be affected by Section 43B. Section 43B though a non-obstante clause, makes deductions to be allowable only on actual payment; when such deductions are otherwise allowable. Primarily it is to be noticed that it is a restrictive clause, the amendments to which or the deletion

M.W.S. & CO.,BHADOHI vs. DY. C.I.T., RANGE - 1, VARANASI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M.W.S. & Co., Naya Bazar V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Road, Bhadohi-221401, Uttar Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Pradesh, India Bengaluru [Jurisdictional Assessing Pan-Aaffm2003E Officer Being Dy./Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Varanasi, U.P. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(24)(x) of the 1961 Act can be allowed and consequently there cannot be any question of entering further into Section 43B of the 1961 Act as the deduction at threshold level of Section 36(1)(va) of the 1961 Act is itself not available. This are the literal and strict interpretation of provisions of Section 2

M.W.S. & CO.,BHADOHI vs. DY. C.I.T., RANGE - 1, VARANASI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M.W.S. & Co., Naya Bazar V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Road, Bhadohi-221401, Uttar Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Pradesh, India Bengaluru [Jurisdictional Assessing Pan-Aaffm2003E Officer Being Dy./Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Varanasi, U.P. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(24)(x) of the 1961 Act can be allowed and consequently there cannot be any question of entering further into Section 43B of the 1961 Act as the deduction at threshold level of Section 36(1)(va) of the 1961 Act is itself not available. This are the literal and strict interpretation of provisions of Section 2

N.E. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES MULTI STATE PRIMARY CO-OPRATIVE BANK LTD., ,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 01,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2009-

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Hon’Ble Sh. Ramit Kocharay: 2009-10 Ay: 2013-14 Ay: 2014-15 N.E. Railway Employees Multi State V. Acit, Primary Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Range-1, Gorakhpur Railway Colony, Mohaddipur Road, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan-Aaajn0595P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Anil Kumar Pandey, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.06.2022 O R D E R

2) is not available. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the assessee is a cooperative society bank as defined as per part V of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, it is not eligible for deduction under section 80P of the Act. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order of the CIT(A). 14. For the assessment years

N.E. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES MULTI STATE PRIMARY COOPARATIVE BANK LTD.,,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 01,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2009-

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Hon’Ble Sh. Ramit Kocharay: 2009-10 Ay: 2013-14 Ay: 2014-15 N.E. Railway Employees Multi State V. Acit, Primary Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Range-1, Gorakhpur Railway Colony, Mohaddipur Road, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan-Aaajn0595P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Anil Kumar Pandey, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.06.2022 O R D E R

2) is not available. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the assessee is a cooperative society bank as defined as per part V of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, it is not eligible for deduction under section 80P of the Act. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order of the CIT(A). 14. For the assessment years

N.E. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES MULTI STATE PRIMARY COOPERATIVE BANK LTD.,,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 01, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2009-

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Vijay Pal Rao & Hon’Ble Sh. Ramit Kocharay: 2009-10 Ay: 2013-14 Ay: 2014-15 N.E. Railway Employees Multi State V. Acit, Primary Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Range-1, Gorakhpur Railway Colony, Mohaddipur Road, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan-Aaajn0595P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Anil Kumar Pandey, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.06.2022 O R D E R

2) is not available. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case when the assessee is a cooperative society bank as defined as per part V of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, it is not eligible for deduction under section 80P of the Act. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order of the CIT(A). 14. For the assessment years

ACIT, CIRCLE - 2,, GORAKHPUR vs. M/S SEORAHI COOPARETIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,, SEORAHI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Seorahi Cooperative Cane Income Tax, V. Development Union Ltd. Circle-2, Seorahi, Gorakhpur, U.P. Kushinagar, U.P. Pan:Aabas8968D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) was denied to the assessee by AO, because the assessee was not doing marketing of agricultural produce grown by its members. Our attention was drawn by ld. DR to Para 8.3 of the assessment order passed by the AO. It was submitted that ld. CIT(A) has allowed deduction to the assessee u/s 80P(2

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

15-11-2019. As the assessee company totally failed in making compliance to the notices u/s 142(1) of the act/ show cause notices in which it was repeatedly asked to substantiated the term loan from others I have decided to treat the difference amount of Rs 2,64,90,092/- (Rs 2,73,59,6471- minus

BLOSSAM HOUSE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,VARANASI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(1), VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2018-19 Blossam House Educational V. Income Tax Officer, Society, 579, Teliabagh, Church Ward-3(1), Varanasi Compound, Maldahiya, Varanasi Pan-Aaatb7686D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Atul Choudhary, C.A. Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.07.2022 O R D E R

2. Ground No. 1 is regarding disallowance of Rs. 19,90,762/- being the exemption claimed under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Income Tax Act. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee is a society registered under section 12A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee filed a return of income claiming deduction 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. 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