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)

b. Deduction u/s 80GGA disallowed Rs.8,54,190/- c. Deduction u/s 8OGGC disallowed Rs.1,71,324/- d. Perquisite disallowed Rs.58,496/- e. Interest on Refund Rs.5,483/- f. Total additions Rs.10,89,493/- g. Assessed Income Rs.78,55,063/- Thus it could be seen that AO disallowed deduction u/s. 80GGA to the tune of Rs.8,54,190/- and deduction u/s

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

section 144 of the Act on 23.12.2017, whereby the income of the assessee was assessed by applying the net profit rate @ 8% on the total deposits in the Bank account of the assessee to the tune of Rs.1,08,62,500/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer has assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.8.69 lakhs as against the returned

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

b) (Rs. 12x26,00,000/-) x 1 x 4 100 12 30 = Rs. 3,467/- c) Total Disallowance in case of TCDL Rs. 10,134/- Therefore, total disallowance on account of section 36(i)(iii) of the Act, turns out to be Rs. 12,10,134/-. In light of the facts presented in preceding paras, proportionate amount is being disallowed

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

b) (Rs. 12x26,00,000/-) x 1 x 4 100 12 30 = Rs. 3,467/- c) Total Disallowance in case of TCDL Rs. 10,134/- Therefore, total disallowance on account of section 36(i)(iii) of the Act, turns out to be Rs. 12,10,134/-. In light of the facts presented in preceding paras, proportionate amount is being disallowed

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)

u/s 271D , of a sum equal to the amount of the loan or deposit so taken or accepted in contravention/violation of provisions of Section 269SS. The AO levied penalty of Rs. 16,75,000/- against the assessee by invoking provisions of Section 271D read with Section 269SS, as the assessee did not furnished any details whatsoever before

BYAS PRASAD VERMA,KUSHINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), KUSHINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Byas Prasad Verma V. The Income Tax Officer Vill. Dhaurahara Ward 2(4) Nadwa Bishunpur Kushinagar Fazilnagar, Kushinagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Amupv6031E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.16,45,000/- In His Saving Bank Account. In Order To Examine These Facts, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Reopened The Case Of The Assessee Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, The Ao Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Source Of Cash

penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b)of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee. 2.3 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the orders of the AO as well as the NFAC by raising

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

Penalty orders under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the aforesaid assessment years. 3. It has been admitted before us that the respondent- assessee is a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. It has also been admitted before as that the respondent/assessee is a Bank, established under Section 3 of the Regional Rural

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

Penalty orders under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the aforesaid assessment years. 3. It has been admitted before us that the respondent- assessee is a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. It has also been admitted before as that the respondent/assessee is a Bank, established under Section 3 of the Regional Rural

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

Penalty orders under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the aforesaid assessment years. 3. It has been admitted before us that the respondent- assessee is a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. It has also been admitted before as that the respondent/assessee is a Bank, established under Section 3 of the Regional Rural

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

Penalty orders under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the aforesaid assessment years. 3. It has been admitted before us that the respondent- assessee is a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. It has also been admitted before as that the respondent/assessee is a Bank, established under Section 3 of the Regional Rural

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

Penalty orders under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the aforesaid assessment years. 3. It has been admitted before us that the respondent- assessee is a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. It has also been admitted before as that the respondent/assessee is a Bank, established under Section 3 of the Regional Rural

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

Penalty orders under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the aforesaid assessment years. 3. It has been admitted before us that the respondent- assessee is a Primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank. It has also been admitted before as that the respondent/assessee is a Bank, established under Section 3 of the Regional Rural

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