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)

section (v) is with respect to and confined to a gratuity fund and does not have any relevance here. We, hence, answer the other questions of law framed, also against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. We dismiss the appeal, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs." 10.3.10 Thus, it can be clearly seen that

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)

Section 43B of the 1961 Act has a heading that certain deductions to be allowed only on actual payment basis and it starts with a non obstante clause that 'notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, a deduction otherwise allowable under this Act in respect of...'. Thus, it stipulates that deduction shall be allowed only on actual

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)

1) of the 1961 Act. If we apply strict interpretation as is normally applied as there is no equity in tax laws, we have observed that the employee contribution received by an employer is treated as income under the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) of the 1961 Act , while deduction is allowed u/s 36(1)(va) read with Explanation

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

67 to 70 of the paper book filed by the assessee,and it was submitted that these are the cheques which have been issued from the ICICI Bank account in favour of M/s. Oven Commerce Pvt. Ltd. , and it was also submitted that the entire amount from this bank account has been transferred to M/s Oven Commerce

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

67 to 70 of the paper book filed by the assessee,and it was submitted that these are the cheques which have been issued from the ICICI Bank account in favour of M/s. Oven Commerce Pvt. Ltd. , and it was also submitted that the entire amount from this bank account has been transferred to M/s Oven Commerce

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

1,40,67,312/- during the year under consideration and a sum of Rs. 19,90,762/- was claimed as income accumulated or set apart being not exceeding 15% of the income derived from the property held under the trust. An identical amount of Rs. 19,90,762/- is also shown in the column giving details of exemption under section

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

disallowed, by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that detailed information regarding them was not available. Justice was not done to the assessee. It was not possible for the assessee's to produce the original account books, which were destroyed in fire. There was, however, other material mainly consisting of the auditors' reports were material. But the question

ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BAJRANG BAHADUR SINGH, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 The Assistant Shri Bajrang Bahadur Singh, Commissioner Of Income V. Marhatha, Campierganj, Tax,Circle-1, Gorakhpur-273001, Uttar Aayakarbhawan, Civil Pradesh Lines, Gorakhpur 273001, Uttar Pradesh Pan:Afxps6284G (Appellant) (Respondent)

1,81,47,450/- towards labour payments stood added by the AO to the income of the assessee , vide assessment order dated 12.12.2017 passed by AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 263 of the 1961 Act. 5.3 There were other addition being made by the AO to the tune of Rs. 3,37,200/- on account of disallowance

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)

67,249/- and added the same to the total income. 6.2 Before ld CIT(A), the assessee contended that the investments have not been made out of borrowed funds. It was submitted that the own funds available with the assessee have exceeded the value of investments and hence no disallowance out of interest expenditure is called for. Hence

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)

67,249/- and added the same to the total income. 6.2 Before ld CIT(A), the assessee contended that the investments have not been made out of borrowed funds. It was submitted that the own funds available with the assessee have exceeded the value of investments and hence no disallowance out of interest expenditure is called for. Hence

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)

67,249/- and added the same to the total income. 6.2 Before ld CIT(A), the assessee contended that the investments have not been made out of borrowed funds. It was submitted that the own funds available with the assessee have exceeded the value of investments and hence no disallowance out of interest expenditure is called for. Hence

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)

67,249/- and added the same to the total income. 6.2 Before ld CIT(A), the assessee contended that the investments have not been made out of borrowed funds. It was submitted that the own funds available with the assessee have exceeded the value of investments and hence no disallowance out of interest expenditure is called for. Hence

INCOME TAX OFFICER, VARANASI vs. NEONATAL HEALTH ACADEMY, VARANASI

In the result, for statistical purposes, both appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 144B of the I. T. Act on 28/09/2021 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,67,74,462/-, disallowing the assessee’s claim of conference and seminar expenses amounting to Rs.2,34,93,962/-. The disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee did not furnish any details/explanation during the assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, VARANASI vs. NEONATAL HEALTH ACADEMY, VARANASI

In the result, for statistical purposes, both appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 144B of the I. T. Act on 28/09/2021 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,67,74,462/-, disallowing the assessee’s claim of conference and seminar expenses amounting to Rs.2,34,93,962/-. The disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee did not furnish any details/explanation during the assessment