M/S AAKAR HOUSING DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,VARANASI vs. ACIT, CIR. - 02, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aakar Housing Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Developers Pvt. Ltd. V. Circle-2, B-21/62 , Kamachha, M.A. Road, Varanasi-221001, U.P. Varanasi, U.P. Pan:Aahca1616Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 68 of the Act, and ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions. Our attention was drawn to Para 3.5 onwards of the assessment order passed by AO and also to Para 6 of appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that there was cash receipts from all these 17 persons aggregating to the tune

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

sections of the society in pursuance of the Constitution of India under which every State Government is responsible for Town Planning and for the welfare of the public. Alongwith with affordable houses public utilities are developed as per the plan of the State Government. In recent times houses are being provided to economically weaker section of the society

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

sections of the society in pursuance of the Constitution of India under which every State Government is responsible for Town Planning and for the welfare of the public. Alongwith with affordable houses public utilities are developed as per the plan of the State Government. In recent times houses are being provided to economically weaker section of the society

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

sections of the society in pursuance of the Constitution of India under which every State Government is responsible for Town Planning and for the welfare of the public. Alongwith with affordable houses public utilities are developed as per the plan of the State Government. In recent times houses are being provided to economically weaker section of the society

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

sections of the society in pursuance of the Constitution of India under which every State Government is responsible for Town Planning and for the welfare of the public. Alongwith with affordable houses public utilities are developed as per the plan of the State Government. In recent times houses are being provided to economically weaker section of the society

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 01,, VARANASI vs. SHRI RAJA RAM KHEMKA,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Raja Ram Khemka Income-Tax, Circle-1, V. 11, Goenka Lane, Varanasi-211001, U.P. Shivtalla Street, Kolkatta-700007, West Bengal Pan:Airpk3661L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri A.K.Singh, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri R S Shinghvi, Fca & Shri H.L.Sekhri, Fca Date Of Hearing 12/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16/01/2023 O R D E R Per Shri Ramit Kochar: This Appeal In I.T.A. No.137/Vns/2020 For Assessment Year(Ay): 2017-18 Has Been Filed By Revenue Challenging Appellate Order Dated 27.08.2020 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Varanasi (Hereinafter Called “Cit(A)” ) Under Section 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Called “The Act”) In Appeal No. Cit(A)/Vns/10780/2019-20/64, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Ld. Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 26.12.2019 By The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The 1961 Act. This Appeals Was Heard In Open Court Proceedings Through Physical Hearing Mode.

68 read with Section 115BBE of the 1961 Act. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire additions. We have observed that the assessee has eight bank accounts, while the additions were restricted by AO to only five bank accounts, and that too with respect to the unexplained cash credits/deposits. It is important at this stage reproduce the reply filed

THE SPRINGER EDUCATION FOUNDATION,,GORAKHPUR vs. CIT (E), LUCKNOW

68 (Allahabad) on the same issue, wherein it was held: "5. In view of the principle of law which has been laid down in the aforesaid decision, there is no basis or foundation in the submission that the delay in filing the application for an exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act beyond

THE MAHABIR JUTE MILLS LIMITED,GORAKHPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 , GORAKHPUR

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

section 68 are applicable and it is for the assessee to prove satisfactorily the nature and source of the monies……. ” 8.6 Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal reported in 2009 (7) TMI 1247 as under:- 10 The Mahabir

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 , GORAKHPUR vs. THE MAHABIR JUTE MILLS LIMITED, GORAKHPUR

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

section 68 are applicable and it is for the assessee to prove satisfactorily the nature and source of the monies……. ” 8.6 Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal reported in 2009 (7) TMI 1247 as under:- 10 The Mahabir

THE MAHABIR JUTE MILLS LTD.,GORAKHPUR vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

section 68 are applicable and it is for the assessee to prove satisfactorily the nature and source of the monies……. ” 8.6 Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal reported in 2009 (7) TMI 1247 as under:- 10 The Mahabir

DCIT,, GORAKHPUR vs. M/S MAHABIR JITE MILLS, LTD., GORAKHPUR

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

section 68 are applicable and it is for the assessee to prove satisfactorily the nature and source of the monies……. ” 8.6 Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal reported in 2009 (7) TMI 1247 as under:- 10 The Mahabir

GALLANTT ISPAT LTD.,GORAKHPUR vs. DY./A.C.I.T. (CENTRAL WING), VARANASI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

section 68 of the Act. 6. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the facts that were submitted before the Assessing Officer. It was also submitted that the sale consideration for sale of office space was determined at Rs. 80 lakhs and the above said company has paid advance of Rs. 50 lakhs. As per the terms

RAGHAWENDRA PRATAP SINGH,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE - 02,, VARANASI

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Late Raghawendra Pratap Singh, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income L/H Geepta Singh (Wife), Tax, Circle-2, Varanasi C-53-54, Shivlok Tower, Lanka Varanasi-221005 Pan-Ahbps8614A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.01.2023

section 68 is wholly erroneous and accordingly the addition of Rs. 10,92,465/- deserves to be deleted

SURENDRA NATH SINGH,,GHAZIPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 3(5), GHAZIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2010-11 Surendra Nath Singh, V. Income Tax Officer, Tilak Nagar Colony, Mahuabagh, Ward-3(5), Ghazipur Ghazipur-233001 Pan-Bphps5975K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Apramay Gabhawala, Ca Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2022 O R D E R

section 68 is wrong ignoring the document filed before the learned CIT(A) on which remand report was called for and the replies filed in compliance to notice u/s. 133(6) on 27.12.17 by three parties Kalanath, Manish, Samrath Singh before the A.O. The documents filed before learned CIT(A) are as under:- (a) Surjeet Singh - Aadhaar Card

M/S U TOLL CORPORATION LTD.,,VARANASI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 02, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh.Vijay Pal Rao & Hon’Ble Sh. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S U Toll Corporation Ltd., V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Samne Ghat, Lanka, Varanasi, U.P. Income Tax, Circle-2, Pan-Aaacu6429Q Varanasi, U.P. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.06.2022

section 44AB of the Act and Audit Report was filed alongwith the return of income. The assessee further explained that the loan of Rs. 40 Lac from Kumar Nagendra is explained by the assessee by filing a copy of account and bank statement of the party but the same was ignored by the authorities. Except this explanation the assessee

SANJAI KUMAR GUPTA,GORAKHPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 2(2), GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2010-11 Shrisanjai Kumar Gupta The Income Tax Officer Ismailpur, Gorakhpur- V. Ward 2(2), Gorakhpur-273001, 273005, U.P. U.P. Pan: Aiwpg7908H (Appellant) (Respondent)

10 lacs, which was raised by assessee from his brother in law, Mr. Jitender Kumar(Rs. 5,00,000/- ) and his friend, Mr. Jehangir Alam(since dead)(Rs. 5,00,000/-), through cheques. It was submitted that there is an error in the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) , wherein the ld. CIT(A) has erroneously held that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 01, VARANASI vs. PERFECT TECNO COUNSULTANTS PVT. LTD. , VARANASI

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Perfect Techno Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle-1, Aayakarbhawan, V. N-1/65-A, Narrotam Nagar Colony, M A Road, Varanasi- Nagwa, Lanka Varanasi-221005,U.P. 221002,U.P. Pan:Aagcp3236N (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sh. Amalendunath Mishra, Cit Dr Assessee By: Sh. Mohammad Ashraf, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.04.2023 O R D E R

68 dealing with cash credits , compliances of Section 69, 69A, 69B , 69C of the 1961 Act dealing with unexplained investments, unexplained money, unexplained expenditure etc. , deducting of income-tax at source on payments made by tax-payers(Chapter XVII-B), prohibition on making payment otherwise than through prescribed banking modes beyond threshold limits(Section 40A(3) ), dealing

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 01,, VARANASI vs. SHRI GANESH PRASAD,, VARANASI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income - Mr. Ganesh Prasad, Tax, V. S-6/108, Golghar Katchhari, Circle-1, Aayakarbhawan, Varanasi-221002, U.P. Maqboolalam Road Varanasi-221002, U.P.

10 Assessment Year: 2017-18 DCIT, Circle-1, Varanasi v. Mr. Ganesh Prasad, Varanasi material proving such ownership.Again, take the case of "investment” under section 69. Could it be validly contended that the department has merely to allege that an assessee has made an investment, say, in house property or in shares or in bonds, without proving