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

disallowed accordingly.” (2) From the said date- a. all properties, funds and dues which are vested in, or realizable by, the Authority shall vest in or be realizable by, the State Government; b. all nazul lands placed at the disposal of the Authority shall revert to the State Government; c. all liabilities which are enforceable against the Authority shall

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

disallowed accordingly.” (2) From the said date- a. all properties, funds and dues which are vested in, or realizable by, the Authority shall vest in or be realizable by, the State Government; b. all nazul lands placed at the disposal of the Authority shall revert to the State Government; c. all liabilities which are enforceable against the Authority shall

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)

disallowance of Rs. 6,31,788/- made under Section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) by A.O being

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)

disallowance of Rs. 6,31,788/- made under Section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) by A.O being

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)

disallowance of Rs. 6,31,788/- made under Section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) by A.O being

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)

disallowance of Rs. 6,31,788/- made under Section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) by A.O being

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)

disallowance of Rs. 6,31,788/- made under Section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) by A.O being

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)

disallowance of Rs. 6,31,788/- made under Section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) by A.O being

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

31-03-2017. Since, appellant failed to substantiate the 'other payables' AO disallowed the difference amount of Rs. 8,22,70,213/- and added to total income of the appellant. Appellant's main contention is that AO has made the said addition of Rs.2,64,90,092/- owing to difference of two figures i.e. Rs. 2

MANOJ MISHRA,VARANASI vs. ITO, WARD - 3(3),, CHANDAULI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2013-14 Manoj Mishra, V. Income Tax Officer, Sultanpur, Ramnagar, Varanasi, U.P. Ward-3(3), Chandauli Pan-Awipm2469F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Prasant Pandey, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.03.2022

section 143(2) of the Act by the Assessing Officer upheld by the “CIT(A)” is bad in law. 2. Payment for sums aggregating to Rs. 4,38,737/- made in cash on 13.12.2012 to Sl Name and address of the Head of Date Amount No. vendor expenditure 1. M/s Jai Bhole Shankar Purchases 13.12.2012 2,06,968 Industries Mahadev

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

31,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained money/cash deposits u/s 69A of the Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred indeleting the addition of Rs. 9,83,50,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplainedmoney/cash deposits

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

M/S AVANTIKA INFRAVENTURE (P) LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

2 arid para 3 respectively of its reply dated 02.11.2018 has failed to state M/s Avantika Infraventures (P) Ltd. any reason or establish any relation for advancement of such loan. Again in its reply dated 22.11.2018 the assessee has submitted that, "It is pertinent to mention that the assessee company has received/made interest free loan/advances from Tulsiani Construction & Developers

M/S AVANTIKA INFRAVENTURE (P) LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

2 arid para 3 respectively of its reply dated 02.11.2018 has failed to state M/s Avantika Infraventures (P) Ltd. any reason or establish any relation for advancement of such loan. Again in its reply dated 22.11.2018 the assessee has submitted that, "It is pertinent to mention that the assessee company has received/made interest free loan/advances from Tulsiani Construction & Developers

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

Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act”). 2. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Varanasi (hereinafter called “the tribunal”), reads as under: 1 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Banaras Swarn Kala Kendra Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT, Central Circle, Varanasi 1. Because

AWADHESH KUMAR,BALLIA vs. ITO, WARD - 2(4), BALLIA

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2016-17 Awadhesh Kumar, V. Income Tax Officer, Arya Samaj Road, Ballia, Ward-2(4), Ballia, U.P. Uttar Pradesh Pan-Athpk1294N (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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer and his action confirmed by the CIT(A) is highly unjustified. 6. That in any view of the matter finding an observation of both the two lower authorities with regard to addition of Rs. 8,32,507/- and Rs. 84,000/- are incorrect and contrary to the actual facts of the case. 7. That

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

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)

31,146/- on account of computation of income by applying profit @8% on the turnover of Rs. 41,39,328/- , which stood added by the AO as income from contract business, as the assessee did not produce relevant information called for by the AO . The AO also disallowed the claim of the assessee of Rs. 34,800/- under Chapter