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

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

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

7,51,255.00 Umesh Chandra Gupta --- 1,18,300.00 8,69,555.00 there was a fresh loan of Rs. 2,73,59,647/-, and the figure of Rs. 8,69,555/- represented long term liabilities which had been fully square up. Thus, it is clear that AO has erred in adopting these figures. Secondly, the figure of Rs.2

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

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. 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

B), prohibition on making payment otherwise than through prescribed banking modes beyond threshold limits(Section 40A(3) ), dealing at arm length price while dealing with relatives and associated concerns in which the tax-payer is interested (Section 40A(2)), disallowance of penalties and other payments made for infraction of law(Section 37(1

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.

disallowance by AO was that the assessee has suppressed profits by inflating unregistered purchases which could be by way of introducing bogus unregistered purchases to inflate expenses and to suppress profits, and for which additions were estimated by the AO @10% of unregistered purchases in the absence of verification by the AO as no details were furnished by the assessee

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)

b) Disallowance of Repairs & Maintenance expenses – Rs.26,92,287/- (c) Addition of unexplained investment in factory building – Rs.12,92,000/- (d) Disallowance of loss from Syntax Division (e) Addition made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 8. The first issue contested by the revenue relates to the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. The facts relating to thereto

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)

b) Disallowance of Repairs & Maintenance expenses – Rs.26,92,287/- (c) Addition of unexplained investment in factory building – Rs.12,92,000/- (d) Disallowance of loss from Syntax Division (e) Addition made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 8. The first issue contested by the revenue relates to the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. The facts relating to thereto

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)

b) Disallowance of Repairs & Maintenance expenses – Rs.26,92,287/- (c) Addition of unexplained investment in factory building – Rs.12,92,000/- (d) Disallowance of loss from Syntax Division (e) Addition made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 8. The first issue contested by the revenue relates to the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. The facts relating to thereto

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)

b) Disallowance of Repairs & Maintenance expenses – Rs.26,92,287/- (c) Addition of unexplained investment in factory building – Rs.12,92,000/- (d) Disallowance of loss from Syntax Division (e) Addition made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 8. The first issue contested by the revenue relates to the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. The facts relating to thereto

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

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)

disallowance . Hence, the appeal is made.” 5b. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee, vide appellate order dated 19.11.2019, by holding as under: “Decision: Notices dated 11.09.2017, 17.11.2017,18.12.2017 , 15.05.2018 , 30.01.2019 , 25.07.2019 , 07.09.2018, 12.10.2019 and 09.11.2019 fixing the date for compliance on 21.09.2017 , 29.11.2017 , I.T.A. No.124/VNS/2020 Shri Rishikesh Shukla v. ITO, Ward-III(1) Mirzapur 7