RAEES ALAM SIDDIQUI,GHAZIPUR vs. DY. C.I.T., RANGE - 1, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) without appreciating that the Ld. A.O. levied penalty without establishing that the explanation furnished by the appellant was false. 6. Because on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in upholding penalty order pervasive to binding decisions interpreting provision explained by courts. 7. Because

SHAILESH MANI TRIPATHI,GORAKHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Shailesh Mani Tripathi, Acit, Circle-1 384-E Infront Of Var- V. Gorakhpur, U.P. Vadhu Marriage House,Aarogyamandir, Shahpurrapti Nagar, Gorakhpur-273001, U.P. Pan:Aefpt 5272A (Appellant) (Respondent)

additions were made by the AO to the income of the assessee on account of perquisites disallowed to the tune of Rs.58,496/- and bringing to tax an 2 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shailesh Mani Tripathi v. ACIT interest income on refund of income-tax to the tune of Rs.5483/-,which stood added as income

DILIP KUMAR SINGH,BALLIA vs. ITO, WARD - 2(4),, BALLIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharay: 2010-11 Sh. Dilip Kumar Singh, V. Income Tax Officer, Sarani Koth, Sikanderpur, Ballia, Ward-2(4), Ballia Uttar Pradesh Pan-Adups6163M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2022 O R D E R

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in the facts of the case. However, since the additions made to the extent of Rs. 3,11,649/- only has been confirmed at the stage of ITAT on account of concealment of income

M/S ROYAL SYMBOL REAL ESTATE AGROTECH CORPORATION LTD.,BALLIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(5), BALLIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28.6.2017. 5. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A). whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, findings of the A.O, submissions of the assessee, decision of the Honble Tribunal .The CIT(A) found that the assessee has got relief in respect

SANJAY TIWARI,GORAKHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16 Sanjay Tiwari V. The Ito Prop. Tiwari Automobiles Ward 2(1) Bewari Chowk, Gola Bazar Gorakhpur Gorakhpur Pan:Agupt4822H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09 02 2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 02 2023 O R D E R

Penalty notice u/s 271 B has wrongly been initiated Requisite fee of Rs. 10000/- has been deposited on 13/09/2021 vide BSR Code CN6360218 Challan No 006345 in Axis Bank copy is enclosed for already reference. Appellant” 6. The assessee has contended that after the case was migrated to the NFAC, New Delhi, only one notice for fixing the date

M/S AVANTIKA INFRAVENTURE (P) LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is being initiated separately for concealment of income.” 9. Thus, it is clear that the AO has stated the fact that the assessee advanced the interest free loan to the sister concerns which was disbursed from PNB term loan account. This fact has not been disputed

M/S AVANTIKA INFRAVENTURE (P) LTD.,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VARANASI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is being initiated separately for concealment of income.” 9. Thus, it is clear that the AO has stated the fact that the assessee advanced the interest free loan to the sister concerns which was disbursed from PNB term loan account. This fact has not been disputed

M/S RAJENDRA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA,AZAMGARH vs. ACIT, RANGE - AZAMGARH, AZAMGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Rajendra Prasad Srivastava, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Sarfuddinpur, Near Railway Tax, Range-Azamgarh Station, Azamgarh-276001 Pan-Aakfr2986A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh.Hari N. Singh Bisen, C.A. Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.02.2023

Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1) (c) is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 7. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) and contended that the AO has assessed the interest on FDR as income from other sources instead of part of net profit. It was contended that the assessee is a civil contractor

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA is being initiated separately on this point. (Addition of Rs. 8,06,04,299/-) That is how the addition of Rs. 8,06,04,299/- was made by the AO, which was the first addition made by the AO , w.r.t. differential in value of stock based on seized material vis-à-vis stock found

GORAKH NATH YADAV,VARANASI vs. ITA, WARD - 3(4), VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

addition made under the head long term capital gain of Rs.16,10,438/-. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that, firstly while initiating the penalty proceedings ld. AO has not specified the charge under which limb penalty is to be imposed in the assessment order. Even in the show-cause notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s

ACIT, CIRCLE - 1,, GORAKHPUR vs. ASHUTOSH KUMAR DUBEY,, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh.Vijay Pal Rao & Hon’Ble Sh. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2015-16 Asstt Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. Sri. Ashutosh Kumar Dubey, Circle-1, Gorakhpur, Aaykar A.S.H. Bhawan, Bhagwanpur, Bhawan, Civil Lines, Gorakhpur Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan-Agtpd9273B (Revenue) (Respondent) Revenue By: A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Respondent By: None Date Of Hearing: 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.06.2022

addition of Rs. 1,75,42,731/- is made to the income of the assessee. The assessee has not furnish accurate particulars of income therefore penalty u/s 271

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 provides as under:- 22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a cooperative society for purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961.- For the purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or any other enactment

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U. P.. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 provides as under:- 22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a cooperative society for purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961.- For the purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or any other enactment

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 provides as under:- 22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a cooperative society for purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961.- For the purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or any other enactment

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 provides as under:- 22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a cooperative society for purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961.- For the purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or any other enactment

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 provides as under:- 22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a cooperative society for purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961.- For the purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or any other enactment

DY. C. I. T., CIRCLE - 1, GORAKHPUR vs. BARODA UTTAR PRADESH GRAMIN BANK NOW AMALGAMATED WITH BARODA U.P. BANK, GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

u/s 271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Section 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 provides as under:- 22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a cooperative society for purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961.- For the purpose of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or any other enactment

PANKAJ KUMAR GUPTA,AZAMGARH vs. ITO WARD3(1), INCOME TAX OFFICE AZAMGARH

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee. 4.0 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the orders of the AO as well as the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal: GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.125/VNS/2023: 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income

PANKAJ KUMAR GUPTA,AZAMGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee. 4.0 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the orders of the AO as well as the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal: GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.125/VNS/2023: 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income