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

143(3), the AO made the addition of Rs. 63,89,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit and Rs. 74 as interest income. The CIT(A) in quantum appeal enhanced the assessment by making an addition of Rs. 3,11,649/- on account of income from contract receipt, interest on FDR and interest on income tax refund. All these

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

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

143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. In all the appeals, the common ground raised by the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of claim of deduction of rs.9,91,23,980/- under section

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

143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. In all the appeals, the common ground raised by the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of claim of deduction of rs.9,91,23,980/- under section

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

143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. In all the appeals, the common ground raised by the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of claim of deduction of rs.9,91,23,980/- under section

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

143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. In all the appeals, the common ground raised by the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of claim of deduction of rs.9,91,23,980/- under section

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

143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. In all the appeals, the common ground raised by the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of claim of deduction of rs.9,91,23,980/- under section

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

143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20. 2. In all the appeals, the common ground raised by the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the disallowance of claim of deduction of rs.9,91,23,980/- under section

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

143(2) of the Act on 21.9.2017, but there was no response from the assessee. Thereafter, a notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 25.9.2017, in response to which the ld. A. R. of the assessee appeared and sought adjournment. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act, but there

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

143(2) was issued by the Assessing Officer on 12.09.2014. The Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act and then estimated the business income by excluding the interest income on FDR which was separately assessed as income from other sources. Accordingly, the net profit was estimated

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

143(3), the AO issued a show cause notice to the assessee as to why disallowance under section 36(i)(iii) of the Income Tax Act should not be done in respect of interest deduction claimed on borrowed fund as it was not utilized for the business of the assessee but was used for advancing interest free loan

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

143(3), the AO issued a show cause notice to the assessee as to why disallowance under section 36(i)(iii) of the Income Tax Act should not be done in respect of interest deduction claimed on borrowed fund as it was not utilized for the business of the assessee but was used for advancing interest free loan