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

4) of the Act. The AO accordingly disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P to the assessee. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) but could not succeeded as the CIT(A) has upheld the order of the AO denying the claim of deduction under section 80P. 3

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

4) of the Act. The AO accordingly disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P to the assessee. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) but could not succeeded as the CIT(A) has upheld the order of the AO denying the claim of deduction under section 80P. 3

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

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

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. 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

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

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. 2,73,59,647/- Rs. 8,69,555/-. However, as per Note no. 3 & 4

M/S. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , VARANASI

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

4(i). The brief facts of the case (ay: 2011-12) arethat the assesseefiled return of income on 30.09.2011, declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. Statutory notices under Sections 143(2)/142

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

4(i). The brief facts of the case (ay: 2011-12) arethat the assesseefiled return of income on 30.09.2011, declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. Statutory notices under Sections 143(2)/142

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

4(i). The brief facts of the case (ay: 2011-12) arethat the assesseefiled return of income on 30.09.2011, declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. Statutory notices under Sections 143(2)/142

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

4(i). The brief facts of the case (ay: 2011-12) arethat the assesseefiled return of income on 30.09.2011, declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for framing scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. Statutory notices under Sections 143(2)/142

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

disallowance made by invoking section 40A(3) of the Act is against the principle of business expediency. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID 5. Ground Nos. 2, 3 and 4

CAREERNET TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD.,,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 2, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2014-15 Careernet Technologies The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited V. Income Tax, 200, Charanlalchowk Range-2 Durga Bari Road, Gorakhpur, U.P. Gorakhpur-273001, U.P. Pan: Aabcc7128H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)of the 1961 Act, which culminated into an assessment order dated 28.12.2016 passed by the AO u/s 143(3)(ii) of the 1961 Act, wherein income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.2,39,32,320/- . The solitary issue in this appeal is with respect to disallowance

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

disallowing this amount of Rs. 19,90,762/- when the claim of the assessee was allowable under section 11 of the Income Tax Act. 3. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR has submitted that the assessee has not explained as how this amount of Rs. 19,90,762/- is equivalent to 15% or less than