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

disallowed and added back to the total income. Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22

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

disallowed and added back to the total income. Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22

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

disallowed and added back to the total income. Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22

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

disallowed and added back to the total income. Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22

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

disallowed and added back to the total income. Penalty notice u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22

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.

22,97,152/- , during the impugned assessment year. During the course of survey proceedings conducted by Revenue against the assessee under Section 133A of the Act, on 05th October, 2017, a statement was recorded on oath of Shri Manjit Singh, the Director of the company on 5th October, 2018(sic. 05th October 2017-correct date of survey ) on the issues

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

22,70.213/- (Rs.30 19.86,328/ minus Rs 21,97,16,115/-) shall not be disallowed and added to your total income brought to tax accordingly. You are being provided another opportunity to comply with the notices u/s 142(1) on or before 19.11.2019 else your case will be disposed of ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act on the basis

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)

22). Accordingly, he deleted the disallowance made by the AO. The revenue is aggrieved. 9.4 We heard the parties and perused the record. Since the assessee had incurred expenditure on purchase of iron rods, the AO has taken the view that the same constitutes Capital expenditure. However, the Ld CIT(A) has observed that “the litmus test for saying

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)

22). Accordingly, he deleted the disallowance made by the AO. The revenue is aggrieved. 9.4 We heard the parties and perused the record. Since the assessee had incurred expenditure on purchase of iron rods, the AO has taken the view that the same constitutes Capital expenditure. However, the Ld CIT(A) has observed that “the litmus test for saying

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)

22). Accordingly, he deleted the disallowance made by the AO. The revenue is aggrieved. 9.4 We heard the parties and perused the record. Since the assessee had incurred expenditure on purchase of iron rods, the AO has taken the view that the same constitutes Capital expenditure. However, the Ld CIT(A) has observed that “the litmus test for saying

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)

22). Accordingly, he deleted the disallowance made by the AO. The revenue is aggrieved. 9.4 We heard the parties and perused the record. Since the assessee had incurred expenditure on purchase of iron rods, the AO has taken the view that the same constitutes Capital expenditure. However, the Ld CIT(A) has observed that “the litmus test for saying

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

SINGHAL AGENCIES,AZAMGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(4), AZAMGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

22 was being uploaded by our counsel we came to know in the month of March, 2022 that appellate order has been passed and even penalty proceedings under section 270A had been completed ex-parte and the order in that case too had been passed on 25.03.2022. 2 After the receipt of the said information, the partner of the firm

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

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)

22-12-2014 fixing the date of hearing on 31-12-2014. On the appropriate date, the counsel of the assessee requested to grant some more time since the appellant is in the process to collect and complete the details as required by Ld. ITO. The case was adjourned and later on in hearings the counsel of the appellant submitted