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

disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be imposed, by an order in writing, by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner, as the case may be.” 8

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

disallowed accordingly.” (2) From the said date- a. all properties, funds and dues which are vested in, or realizable by, the Authority shall vest in or be realizable by, the State Government; b. all nazul lands placed at the disposal of the Authority shall revert to the State Government; c. all liabilities which are enforceable against the Authority shall

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

disallowed accordingly.” (2) From the said date- a. all properties, funds and dues which are vested in, or realizable by, the Authority shall vest in or be realizable by, the State Government; b. all nazul lands placed at the disposal of the Authority shall revert to the State Government; c. all liabilities which are enforceable against the Authority shall

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

disallowed accordingly.” (2) From the said date- a. all properties, funds and dues which are vested in, or realizable by, the Authority shall vest in or be realizable by, the State Government; b. all nazul lands placed at the disposal of the Authority shall revert to the State Government; c. all liabilities which are enforceable against the Authority shall

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

disallowed accordingly.” (2) From the said date- a. all properties, funds and dues which are vested in, or realizable by, the Authority shall vest in or be realizable by, the State Government; b. all nazul lands placed at the disposal of the Authority shall revert to the State Government; c. all liabilities which are enforceable against the Authority shall

N.E. RAILWAY EMPLOYEES MULTI STATE PRIMARY COOPARATIVE 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

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P and added the amount of Rs. 37,28,310/- to the total income of the assessee. Though the Assessing Officer has also made an addition of Rs. 5,56,855/- on account of a provision for bad and doubtful dates made by the N.E. Railway Employees Multi State Primary Co-operative Bank

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

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P and added the amount of Rs. 37,28,310/- to the total income of the assessee. Though the Assessing Officer has also made an addition of Rs. 5,56,855/- on account of a provision for bad and doubtful dates made by the N.E. Railway Employees Multi State Primary Co-operative Bank

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

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80P and added the amount of Rs. 37,28,310/- to the total income of the assessee. Though the Assessing Officer has also made an addition of Rs. 5,56,855/- on account of a provision for bad and doubtful dates made by the N.E. Railway Employees Multi State Primary Co-operative Bank

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)

8. Looking at the provisions we are definite that the Act treats employer's and employee's contribution distinctly. Sub-clause (v) of Section 36(1) speaks of a gratuity fund, wherein the employee does not contribute at all. Section 36(1)(va) speaks of the employee's contribution to a welfare fund for the benefit of employees alone

M.W.S. & CO.,BHADOHI vs. DY. C.I.T., RANGE - 1, VARANASI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M.W.S. & Co., Naya Bazar V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Road, Bhadohi-221401, Uttar Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Pradesh, India Bengaluru [Jurisdictional Assessing Pan-Aaffm2003E Officer Being Dy./Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Varanasi, U.P. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(24)(x) of the 1961 Act can be allowed and consequently there cannot be any question of entering further into Section 43B of the 1961 Act as the deduction at threshold level of Section 36(1)(va) of the 1961 Act is itself not available. This are the literal and strict interpretation of provisions of Section

M.W.S. & CO.,BHADOHI vs. DY. C.I.T., RANGE - 1, VARANASI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M.W.S. & Co., Naya Bazar V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Road, Bhadohi-221401, Uttar Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Pradesh, India Bengaluru [Jurisdictional Assessing Pan-Aaffm2003E Officer Being Dy./Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Varanasi, U.P. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(24)(x) of the 1961 Act can be allowed and consequently there cannot be any question of entering further into Section 43B of the 1961 Act as the deduction at threshold level of Section 36(1)(va) of the 1961 Act is itself not available. This are the literal and strict interpretation of provisions of Section

M/S RUGS MART,VARANASI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 03, VARANASI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesseeis in ITA No

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Rugs Mart Deputy Commissioner Of Barhi Ewada V. Income Tax (Cpc), Centralized District Varanasi-221207 Processing Center , U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (The Dcit , Circle-3, Varanasi, U.P.) Pan:Aalfr4883R (Appellant) (Respondent)

8. Looking at the provisions we are definite that the Act treats employer's and employee's contribution distinctly. Sub-clause (v) of Section 36(1) speaks of a gratuity fund, wherein the employee does not contribute at all. Section 36(1)(va) speaks of the employee's contribution to a welfare fund for the benefit of employees alone

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)

8. Looking at the provisions we are definite that the Act treats employer's and employee's contribution distinctly. Sub-clause (v) of Section 36(1) speaks of a gratuity fund, wherein the employee does not contribute at all. Section 36(1)(va) speaks of the employee's contribution to a welfare fund for the benefit of employees alone

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)

8. Looking at the provisions we are definite that the Act treats employer's and employee's contribution distinctly. Sub-clause (v) of Section 36(1) speaks of a gratuity fund, wherein the employee does not contribute at all. Section 36(1)(va) speaks of the employee's contribution to a welfare fund for the benefit of employees alone

M/S THE KASHI SAHKARI CHINI CHINI MILLS LTD.,,BHADOHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, VARANASI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The Kashi Sahkari Chini, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mills Ltd., V. Circle-1, Aurai, Bhadohi, Varanasi. U.P. Pan:Aaaat7921J (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowing interest aggregating to Rs. 6,06,86,570/- by invoking provisions of section 43B of the Act. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID 3. Because the amount of interest of Rs 6,06,86,570/- claimed by the appellant on account of loan taken by it from Cooperative Sugar Mills Revolving Cess Nidhi (an altogether a separate entity) does

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

disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia), is not justified. 7. On the other hand, the learned DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 8

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 under the provisions of section 40A(3) is not justified when the purchases are not doubted. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs CPL Tannery 318 ITR 179 and submitted that owing to the business expediency, obligation and exigency, the assessee

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