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

20 all of 2022 arise from the Assessment Orders for Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2014-15 respectively, whereas the :-4-: Income Tax Appeal No. 23 of 2022 and Income Tax Appeals (Defective) Nos. 17, 21, 24 and 22 all of 2022 arise from the Penalty orders under Section 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

20 all of 2022 arise from the Assessment Orders for Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2014-15 respectively, whereas the :-4-: Income Tax Appeal No. 23 of 2022 and Income Tax Appeals (Defective) Nos. 17, 21, 24 and 22 all of 2022 arise from the Penalty orders under Section 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

20 all of 2022 arise from the Assessment Orders for Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2014-15 respectively, whereas the :-4-: Income Tax Appeal No. 23 of 2022 and Income Tax Appeals (Defective) Nos. 17, 21, 24 and 22 all of 2022 arise from the Penalty orders under Section 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

20 all of 2022 arise from the Assessment Orders for Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2014-15 respectively, whereas the :-4-: Income Tax Appeal No. 23 of 2022 and Income Tax Appeals (Defective) Nos. 17, 21, 24 and 22 all of 2022 arise from the Penalty orders under Section 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

20 all of 2022 arise from the Assessment Orders for Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2014-15 respectively, whereas the :-4-: Income Tax Appeal No. 23 of 2022 and Income Tax Appeals (Defective) Nos. 17, 21, 24 and 22 all of 2022 arise from the Penalty orders under Section 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

20 all of 2022 arise from the Assessment Orders for Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2014-15 respectively, whereas the :-4-: Income Tax Appeal No. 23 of 2022 and Income Tax Appeals (Defective) Nos. 17, 21, 24 and 22 all of 2022 arise from the Penalty orders under Section 271

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

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