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

disallowance of claim of deduction of rs.9,91,23,980/- under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that similar issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case, vide order dated 8.1.2021 for Assessment Years

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

disallowance of claim of deduction of rs.9,91,23,980/- under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that similar issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case, vide order dated 8.1.2021 for Assessment Years

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

disallowance of claim of deduction of rs.9,91,23,980/- under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that similar issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case, vide order dated 8.1.2021 for Assessment Years

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

disallowance of claim of deduction of rs.9,91,23,980/- under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that similar issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case, vide order dated 8.1.2021 for Assessment Years

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

disallowance of claim of deduction of rs.9,91,23,980/- under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that similar issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case, vide order dated 8.1.2021 for Assessment Years

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

19,380/- was sustained by ld. CIT(A). It was submitted by learned CIT DR that the assessee filed some evidences/explanations etc. before ld. CIT(A) which were in the nature of additional evidences filed by the assessee for the first time before ld. CIT(A), which were admitted and accepted by ld. CIT(A) without any verification, and also

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.

19, New Mohal, Varanasi-211001, U.P. Near Balika Inter College, Mugalsarai, Chandauli- 232101, U.P. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:AAHCR4764Q Assesseeby: Shri Shishir Bajpai, CA Revenue by: Shri Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR Date of hearing: 11.01.2023 03.02.2023 Date of pronouncement: AY:2017-18 DCIT , Circle-1, Varanasi , U.P. v. M/s. Ratandeep Gold & Diamond Pvt. Ltd.,Chandauli

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

2,81,795/-. The assessee participated in the assessment proceedings, which culminated into an assessment of the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs.17,92,690/- in the hands of the assessee, vide assessment order dated 23.03.2015 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act, wherein two additions were made by the AO. Firstly

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