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)

sections of the IT Act is highly unjustified and illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. That in any view of the matter the appellant reserves his right to take any further ground of appeal before hearing of the appeal.” 2 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Seema Shah v. ITO 3. This appeal is almost five years

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

3). Moreover, it may be mentioned that the benefit of Section 11 is not absolute or conclusive. It is subject to control of Sections 60 to 63. If it is found by keeping in view the provisions of Sections 60 to 63 that it is not so includible then such income does not qualify for any relief. 19. The contention

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

3). Moreover, it may be mentioned that the benefit of Section 11 is not absolute or conclusive. It is subject to control of Sections 60 to 63. If it is found by keeping in view the provisions of Sections 60 to 63 that it is not so includible then such income does not qualify for any relief. 19. The contention

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

3). Moreover, it may be mentioned that the benefit of Section 11 is not absolute or conclusive. It is subject to control of Sections 60 to 63. If it is found by keeping in view the provisions of Sections 60 to 63 that it is not so includible then such income does not qualify for any relief. 19. The contention

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

3). Moreover, it may be mentioned that the benefit of Section 11 is not absolute or conclusive. It is subject to control of Sections 60 to 63. If it is found by keeping in view the provisions of Sections 60 to 63 that it is not so includible then such income does not qualify for any relief. 19. The contention

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

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 to say to an assessee that "your background shows that you have a lot of money. You must have invested it. Now tell

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 52C(2)(sic.50C(2)) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Learned CIT(A) has erred and acted illegally in confirming the same. 2. Because the assessment order is bad both on facts and law and not maintainable.” 2.1. The assessee has also raised additional grounds of appeal, which reads as under : “1. Because it is fully explained that

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

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

Bench: Ramit Kochar

3)(ii) read with Section 153B(1b) of the 1961 Act. 4. There was one more additions made by the AO to the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 1,44,000/- on account of low drawings towards household expenses shown by the assessee,while framing assessment against the assessee.The AO during assessment proceedings observed that

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

3)(ii) read with Section 153B(1b) of the 1961 Act. 4. There was one more additions made by the AO to the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 1,44,000/- on account of low drawings towards household expenses shown by the assessee,while framing assessment against the assessee.The AO during assessment proceedings observed 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

3)(ii) read with Section 153B(1b) of the 1961 Act. 4. There was one more additions made by the AO to the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 1,44,000/- on account of low drawings towards household expenses shown by the assessee,while framing assessment against the assessee.The AO during assessment proceedings observed 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

3)(ii) read with Section 153B(1b) of the 1961 Act. 4. There was one more additions made by the AO to the income of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 1,44,000/- on account of low drawings towards household expenses shown by the assessee,while framing assessment against the assessee.The AO during assessment proceedings observed that

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3 AY 2013-14 Shamimul Fatima the capital gain has arisen in March 2013. Therefore,he held that assessee should have invested in the property within one year from the date of transaction or should have deposited in the bank under the capital gain scheme. Accordingly, he denied the exemption u/s 54F. 5.The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed said order

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action under section 132 of the I.T. Act was conducted at the residential and business premises of the assessees on 21.2.2018. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that various members of the assessee’s family have purchased a land and formed a housing