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

b. A sub-section 80P(4) was introduced by Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 01.04.2007 withdrawing deduction u/s 80P in relation to any cooperative bank. The explanatory note to Finance Act with regard to this section is noted below:- “Withdrawl of tax benefits available to certain cooperative banks:- Section 80P, inter alia, provides for a deduction from the total income

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

b. A sub-section 80P(4) was introduced by Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 01.04.2007 withdrawing deduction u/s 80P in relation to any cooperative bank. The explanatory note to Finance Act with regard to this section is noted below:- “Withdrawl of tax benefits available to certain cooperative banks:- Section 80P, inter alia, provides for a deduction from the total income

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

b. A sub-section 80P(4) was introduced by Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 01.04.2007 withdrawing deduction u/s 80P in relation to any cooperative bank. The explanatory note to Finance Act with regard to this section is noted below:- “Withdrawl of tax benefits available to certain cooperative banks:- Section 80P, inter alia, provides for a deduction from the total income

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

b. A sub-section 80P(4) was introduced by Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 01.04.2007 withdrawing deduction u/s 80P in relation to any cooperative bank. The explanatory note to Finance Act with regard to this section is noted below:- “Withdrawl of tax benefits available to certain cooperative banks:- Section 80P, inter alia, provides for a deduction from the total income

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

b. A sub-section 80P(4) was introduced by Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 01.04.2007 withdrawing deduction u/s 80P in relation to any cooperative bank. The explanatory note to Finance Act with regard to this section is noted below:- “Withdrawl of tax benefits available to certain cooperative banks:- Section 80P, inter alia, provides for a deduction from the total income

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

KAHM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,VARANASI vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year:2018-19 M/S Kahm Properties Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dc/Acit B-21/192, Kamaccha Central Circle Varanasai Varanasi Tan/Pan:Aacck7739F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri V. K. Jindal Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26 09 2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 09 2023

2) A person shall be considered to have under-reported his income, if— (a) the income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return processed under clause (a) of sub- section (1) of section 143; (b) the income assessed is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, where no return of income has been furnished

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

5 Assessment Year: 2017-18 DCIT, Circle-1, Varanasi, U.P. v. Perfect Techno Consultants Pvt. Ltd. time. The ld. Counsel prayed that the appellate order of ld. CIT(A) be upheld and the appeal filed by Revenue be dismissed. The ld. Counsel for the assesseerelied upon the following judicial precedents, in support of his contentions,as under:- i. Judgment

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.

Section 250(2) of the 1961 Act, which reads as under: “Procedure in appeal 250. (1) *** *** *** *** (2) The following shall have the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal- (a) the appellant, either in person or by an authorized representative ; (b) The Assessing Officer , either in person or by a representative. *** *** *** ***” Fair hearing and adherence of principles

M/S RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA,AZAMGARH vs. ACIT, RANGE - AZAMGARH, AZAMGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Sarfuddinpur, Near Railway Tax, Range-Azamgarh Station, Azamgarh-276001 Pan-Aakfr2986A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh.Hari N. Singh Bisen, C.A. Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.02.2023

section 145(2) is also a decision inasmuch as it amounts to un acceptance of the method of accounting on the ground that the income, profits and gains can be properly deduced therefrom. It is therefore open to the AAC to reject the assessee's books of account which have been accepted by the ITO. Hence, the books of account

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)

2. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Jute bags, hessian, sutli and other jute products. 3. We shall first take up cross appeals and the cross objection pertaining to AY 2009-10. The revenue carried out survey operation u/s 133A of the Act on 03-02-2009. Consequent thereto, the assessment was completed

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)

2. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Jute bags, hessian, sutli and other jute products. 3. We shall first take up cross appeals and the cross objection pertaining to AY 2009-10. The revenue carried out survey operation u/s 133A of the Act on 03-02-2009. Consequent thereto, the assessment was completed

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)

2. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Jute bags, hessian, sutli and other jute products. 3. We shall first take up cross appeals and the cross objection pertaining to AY 2009-10. The revenue carried out survey operation u/s 133A of the Act on 03-02-2009. Consequent thereto, the assessment was completed

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)

2. The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Jute bags, hessian, sutli and other jute products. 3. We shall first take up cross appeals and the cross objection pertaining to AY 2009-10. The revenue carried out survey operation u/s 133A of the Act on 03-02-2009. Consequent thereto, the assessment was completed

OM PRAKASH JAISWAL,,GORAKHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, GORAKHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

b) Addition of trading creditor of Rs. 5,17,500/- 2 Om Prakash Jaiswal 3.1 The first issue relates to addition on account of increase in rate of gross profit made by the AO. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee did not produce ledger and cash book. Further the Assessing Officer also noticed that the assessee had shown

SHRI OM PRAKASH JAISWAL, PROP. M/S. JAISWAL TRADING COMPANY, ,GORAKHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GORAKHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

b) Addition of trading creditor of Rs. 5,17,500/- 2 Om Prakash Jaiswal 3.1 The first issue relates to addition on account of increase in rate of gross profit made by the AO. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee did not produce ledger and cash book. Further the Assessing Officer also noticed that the assessee had shown

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

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

B) In this case, there was difference of opinion between Hon'ble Judicial Member and Hon'ble Accountant Member. The question of difference between the Division Bench of the Members is as under: “(1)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 69C are not attracted in respect of the disallowance made by the Assessing