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 BANARAS SWARN KALA KENDRA PVT. LTD.,,VARANASI vs. ACIT, CC, VARANASI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Banaras Swarn Kala Kendra Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Ck-65/70A, Bari Piari, V. Income Tax, Varanasi-221002, U.P. Central Circle, Aaykar Bhawan, M A Road, Varanasi-221002, U.P. Pan:Aaccb1623M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Shri A.K. Pandey, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2022

disallowance of claim of bad debts reached finality. 7. The assessee being aggrieved filed first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and assessee submitted before CIT(A) that there was no excess stock found during the course of search and infact quantitative term, the excess difference of 503.365 grms was found , and the assessee submitted a reconciliation chart showing the closing

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 u/s 54B of ₹ 53,50,300/- and ₹ 93,94

SINGHAL AGENCIES,AZAMGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(4), AZAMGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 270A for the year under consideration. Later, when the partner of the assessee firm was stabilized, he has rejoined the activities of the firm in the month of July, 2022, then he realized about non-filing of the appeal against the appellate order dated 25.11.2021. Soon thereafter, he contacted our chartered accountant for this purpose and handed over

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

94 ITR 616 wherein at page 650 the Hon'ble court observed and held as under:- "Now, it is significant that section 69A speaks of "found to be the owner of .........bullion......... It does not say "found to be in possession, of bullion......... If the legislature had intended that mere possession of gold, etc., would cast an obligation