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

2) LalaIndra Sun In Re (1940) 8 ITR 187 (Alld) (3) NarasinghaKar& CO. v, CIT (1978) 113 ITR 712(Ori) 9.11 From the aforesaid, it is clear that the appellant "Authority" is not engaged in carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity in rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce

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

2) LalaIndra Sun In Re (1940) 8 ITR 187 (Alld) (3) NarasinghaKar& CO. v, CIT (1978) 113 ITR 712(Ori) 9.11 From the aforesaid, it is clear that the appellant "Authority" is not engaged in carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity in rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce

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.

50,000/- - Rs. 39,21,453/-) is the unaccounted money brought into books of account of the assessee as the credit entry which remains unexplained regarding nature and source , and hence is to be taxed as per section 69A of the Act read with Section 115BBE of the 1961 Act Thus, the AO made the addition to the income

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

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

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. 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

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 - 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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 ₹ 93,94,781/- u/s 54F respectively. The Ld. AO noted that flat in which investment was claimed was actually booked

ACIT, CC,, VARANASI vs. M/S D.S. INFRAHEIGHTS PVT. LTD.,, VARANASI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

2. The background facts relating to the cases are stated in brief. Both the assessees herein belong to the same group and both of them are engaged in real estate business. The Revenue carried out search and seizure operations under section 132 of the Act in the case of M/s. Tulsiani Construction and Developers Pvt. Limited, its sister concerns, residential

ACIT, CC, VARANASI vs. M/S VATIKA NIRMAN PVT. LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

2. The background facts relating to the cases are stated in brief. Both the assessees herein belong to the same group and both of them are engaged in real estate business. The Revenue carried out search and seizure operations under section 132 of the Act in the case of M/s. Tulsiani Construction and Developers Pvt. Limited, its sister concerns, residential