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

houses and selling it on commercial lines . The AO further observed that the assessee is engaged in the sale of shops. The AO also observed that the assessee is engaged in the business activities, and hence it has filed audit report u/s 44AB of the 1961 Act, in Form No. 3CB and Form No. 3CD. 4(v) the AO observed

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

houses and selling it on commercial lines . The AO further observed that the assessee is engaged in the sale of shops. The AO also observed that the assessee is engaged in the business activities, and hence it has filed audit report u/s 44AB of the 1961 Act, in Form No. 3CB and Form No. 3CD. 4(v) the AO observed

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

property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for charitable or religious purposes or in part only for such purposes, or of income being voluntary contributions referred to in sub-clause (iia) of clause (24) of section 2, shall, if the total income in respect of which he is assessable as a representative assessee (the total income for this

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

property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for charitable or religious purposes or in part only for such purposes, or of income being voluntary contributions referred to in sub-clause (iia) of clause (24) of section 2, shall, if the total income in respect of which he is assessable as a representative assessee (the total income for this

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

house property chargeable under section 22. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an "urban consumers' co-operative society" means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee is entitled also to the deduction under [***] [section

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

house property chargeable under section 22. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an "urban consumers' co-operative society" means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee is entitled also to the deduction under [***] [section

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

house property chargeable under section 22. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, an "urban consumers' co-operative society" means a society for the benefit of the consumers within the limits of a municipal corporation, municipality, municipal committee, notified area committee, town area or cantonment. (3) In a case where the assessee is entitled also to the deduction under [***] [section

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

section 69. Could it be validly contended that the department has merely to allege that an assessee has made an investment, say, in house property or in shares or in bands, without proving the factual existence of such an investment? There must be some starting point. It would be all too easy (and oppressive (sic) for an Income-tax Officer

SMT. SEEMA SHAH,VARANASI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Seema Shah, Income Tax Officer, B-37/1F 2Kh, Haijnatha, Ward –2(2) V. Birdopur, Varanasi, U.P. Varanasi- 221010,Uttar Pradesh Pan:Aqpps9465C (Appellant) (Respondent)

14(ay:2014-15) on which the Assessing Officer has rightly allowed the deduction u/s. 54 of the Act. So far as the residential building/house constructed on the said land is concerned, it was constructed in ay: 2014-15 on the aforesaid land, and the residential house was sold in ay: 2014-15 itself , the residential house was held

INDRA NARAYAN TRIPATHI,GORAKHPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 02,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

house and he suffered from severe pain and was admitted to hospital, which was the main reason for delay in filing of the appeal. The assessee has enclosed a 4 ITA.No.05/VNS/2020 Sri Indra Narayan Tripathi, Gorakhpur. Assessment Year 2014-15 Certificate from Dr. Piyush Kr. Singh dated 15.12.2019 to support that assessee fell down from the roof

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 01,, VARANASI vs. SHRI GANESH PRASAD,, VARANASI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income - Mr. Ganesh Prasad, Tax, V. S-6/108, Golghar Katchhari, Circle-1, Aayakarbhawan, Varanasi-221002, U.P. Maqboolalam Road Varanasi-221002, U.P.

section 69. Could it be validly contended that the department has merely to allege that an assessee has made an investment, say, in house property or in shares or in bonds, without proving the factual existence of such an investment? There must be some starting point. It would be all too easy (and oppressive (sic) for an Income-tax Officer

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

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 SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed

SHAMIMUL FATIMA,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, RANGE - 02, GORAKHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) of the Act that the capital gains should be deposited in the CGAS scheme is merely an enabling provision. If the assessee shows during assessment proceedings that the capital gains have been reinvested in the new residential house, exemption cannot be denied merely the amount was not deposited in the CGAS. In this case it is a fact that

SHRI GHANSHYAM JAISWAL,AZAMGARH vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ramit Kochar

2,00,000/- were withdrawn in December 2007 and Rs. 4,50,000/- in January ‘ 2008 which was kept at house for purchase of the land at Varanasi. The alleged sum of Rs. 9.00 lacs was given to Shri Naim Ahmad on 06.05.2008 to deliver it at Varanasi.” 3i. The AO observed that In view of the above reply/statement, since

SHRI GHANSHYAM JAISWAL,AZAMGARH vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE - 01, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ramit Kochar

2,00,000/- were withdrawn in December 2007 and Rs. 4,50,000/- in January ‘ 2008 which was kept at house for purchase of the land at Varanasi. The alleged sum of Rs. 9.00 lacs was given to Shri Naim Ahmad on 06.05.2008 to deliver it at Varanasi.” 3i. The AO observed that In view of the above reply/statement, since

SHRI GHANSHYAM JAISWAL,AZAMGARH vs. DY.CIT, CIRCLE - 1,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ramit Kochar

2,00,000/- were withdrawn in December 2007 and Rs. 4,50,000/- in January ‘ 2008 which was kept at house for purchase of the land at Varanasi. The alleged sum of Rs. 9.00 lacs was given to Shri Naim Ahmad on 06.05.2008 to deliver it at Varanasi.” 3i. The AO observed that In view of the above reply/statement, since

SHRI GHANSHYAM JAISWAL,,AZAMGARH vs. DY. C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ramit Kochar

2,00,000/- were withdrawn in December 2007 and Rs. 4,50,000/- in January ‘ 2008 which was kept at house for purchase of the land at Varanasi. The alleged sum of Rs. 9.00 lacs was given to Shri Naim Ahmad on 06.05.2008 to deliver it at Varanasi.” 3i. The AO observed that In view of the above reply/statement, since

YOGESH KUMAR VERMA,BALLIA vs. DC/ACIT, CC, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year:2018-19 Pramod Kumar V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Amypk5524D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2018-19 Kanchan Sarraf V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Ahnpd1118Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2018-19 Yogesh Kumar Verma V. The Dc/Acit, C/O D.P. Jewellers Central Circle Station Road, Chowk Varanasi Ballia Tan/Pan:Amypk5523E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: S/Shri V.K. Jindal & Ashish Jindal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Robin Chaudhary, Cit Date Of Hearing: 27 09 2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05 10 2023 O R D E R

housing complex situated at Jeera Basti Hanuman Garh, Ballia. During the course of investigation stage itself, the valuation of said property was referred to the DVO for determining the amount of investment made by various members of the family. The DVO had valued the property at Rs.6,97,43,900/-, whereas all the three assessees have disclosed the investment