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

1) on 14.10.2016 alongwith the questionnaire. In compliance of the said notice, the assessee filed its reply. The AO made reference to sub section 4 of section 80P which was inserted by Finance N.E. Railway Employees Multi State Primary Co-operative Bank Ltd. Act, 2006 w.e.f. assessment year 2007-08. The AO observed that the assessee is neither a primary

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

1) on 14.10.2016 alongwith the questionnaire. In compliance of the said notice, the assessee filed its reply. The AO made reference to sub section 4 of section 80P which was inserted by Finance N.E. Railway Employees Multi State Primary Co-operative Bank Ltd. Act, 2006 w.e.f. assessment year 2007-08. The AO observed that the assessee is neither a primary

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

1) on 14.10.2016 alongwith the questionnaire. In compliance of the said notice, the assessee filed its reply. The AO made reference to sub section 4 of section 80P which was inserted by Finance N.E. Railway Employees Multi State Primary Co-operative Bank Ltd. Act, 2006 w.e.f. assessment year 2007-08. The AO observed that the assessee is neither a primary

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

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

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)

1. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 13,99,840/- under the head 'Capital Gain’ made by the assessing officer and his action as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is highly, unjustified, incorrect and the appellant is liable to get benefit for investment made in the construction of another property while determining

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

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

c. all liabilities which are enforceable against the Authority shall be enforceable against the State Government; and d. for the purpose of carrying out any development which has not been fully carried out by the Authority and for the purpose of realizing properties, funds and due referred to in clause, (a) the functions of the Authority shall be discharged

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

c. all liabilities which are enforceable against the Authority shall be enforceable against the State Government; and d. for the purpose of carrying out any development which has not been fully carried out by the Authority and for the purpose of realizing properties, funds and due referred to in clause, (a) the functions of the Authority shall be discharged

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

c. all liabilities which are enforceable against the Authority shall be enforceable against the State Government; and d. for the purpose of carrying out any development which has not been fully carried out by the Authority and for the purpose of realizing properties, funds and due referred to in clause, (a) the functions of the Authority shall be discharged

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

c. all liabilities which are enforceable against the Authority shall be enforceable against the State Government; and d. for the purpose of carrying out any development which has not been fully carried out by the Authority and for the purpose of realizing properties, funds and due referred to in clause, (a) the functions of the Authority shall be discharged

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 prior to two years from the date on which capital gain actual arose to the assessee. It was further noted by him that earlier

BANDANA PANDEY,GORAKHPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE - 01,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Bandana Pandey Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax , W/O Shri Shyam Chandra V. Range-1, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pandey, 29-B, Betihata South, Awas Vikas Colony, Gorakhpur-273001, U.P. Pan:Atopb4997J (Appellant) (Respondent)

property. It was also submitted that Section 269SS has no applicability, if the loan is taken by wife from husband , and vice versa , as they are close family members. It was submitted that the residential house was purchased for self use and the husband of the assessee provided financial help to the assessee for purchase of the residential house

KANCHAN SARRAF,BALLIA vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 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

PRAMOD KUMAR,BALLIA vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 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

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

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)

houses named Urban Woods I and Urban Woods II. As per the agreement, APIL shall hand over the possession of the land to the assessees herein after payment of 20-30% of the agreed consideration. APIL will allow marketing of the flats after payment of 50% of the agreed consideration. It was submitted that both the assesees have entered into

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)

houses named Urban Woods I and Urban Woods II. As per the agreement, APIL shall hand over the possession of the land to the assessees herein after payment of 20-30% of the agreed consideration. APIL will allow marketing of the flats after payment of 50% of the agreed consideration. It was submitted that both the assesees have entered into