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

3) NarasinghaKar& CO. v, CIT (1978) 113 ITR 712(Ori) 9.11 From the aforesaid, it is clear that the appellant "Authority" is not engaged in carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity in rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business in as much as profit motive

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

3) NarasinghaKar& CO. v, CIT (1978) 113 ITR 712(Ori) 9.11 From the aforesaid, it is clear that the appellant "Authority" is not engaged in carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity in rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business in as much as profit motive

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

3) NarasinghaKar& CO. v, CIT (1978) 113 ITR 712(Ori) 9.11 From the aforesaid, it is clear that the appellant "Authority" is not engaged in carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity in rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business in as much as profit motive

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

3) NarasinghaKar& CO. v, CIT (1978) 113 ITR 712(Ori) 9.11 From the aforesaid, it is clear that the appellant "Authority" is not engaged in carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity in rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business in as much as profit motive

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 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Right is reserve to alter , modify and to file any fresh ground of appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed his return of income on 27.03.2018 declaring returned income of Rs. 20,92,960/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected by Revenue for complete

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)

e) Addition made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 8. The first issue contested by the revenue relates to the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. The facts relating to thereto are that the assessee has maintained a godown at a place called Farbesganj, which was used as procurement centre of raw materials required for the assessee. The revenue

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)

e) Addition made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 8. The first issue contested by the revenue relates to the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. The facts relating to thereto are that the assessee has maintained a godown at a place called Farbesganj, which was used as procurement centre of raw materials required for the assessee. The revenue

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)

e) Addition made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 8. The first issue contested by the revenue relates to the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. The facts relating to thereto are that the assessee has maintained a godown at a place called Farbesganj, which was used as procurement centre of raw materials required for the assessee. The revenue

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)

e) Addition made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. 8. The first issue contested by the revenue relates to the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. The facts relating to thereto are that the assessee has maintained a godown at a place called Farbesganj, which was used as procurement centre of raw materials required for the assessee. The revenue

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)

E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) that was levied upon the assessee vide the orders of the ld. Assessing Officer dated 25.01.2022. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. Because the learned Commissioner

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.

E R PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal, filed by Revenue, being ITA No.138/VNS/2020, is directed against the appellate order dated 08.09.2020 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Varanasi(hereinafter called "the CIT(A)”) in Appeal No. CIT(A), Varanasi/10401/2019-20/71, for assessment year (ay): 2017-18, the appellate proceedings had arisen before Learned CIT(A) from

UTKARSH SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD.,VARANASI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Utkarsh Small Finance National E-Assessment Centre, Bank Limited V. Delhi S-24/1-2, First Floor, Mahavir Nagar, Orderly Bazar, Near Mahavir Mandir, Varanasi- 221001, U.P. Pan:Aabcu9355J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 2(24)(x) of the 1961 Act , while deduction is allowed u/s 36(1)(va) read with Explanation of the amount received by an employer from employees as their contribution which stood deposited by employer to the credit of employee with relevant fund on or before the due date as is prescribed under relevant statute governing PF/ESI

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 of the Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 31,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained money/cash deposits u/s 69A of the Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

e) Yogesh Singh -Aadhaar Card, 1 Khatauni (f) Alok Singh - 1 Khatauni of father Jaiprakash 9. Because the learned CIT(A) has not adjudicated grounds of appeal as under:- “Because regarding loan the appellant has filed the list containing name of six persons their address and borrowed amount but teamed A. O. has not given reasonable opportunity to the appellant

M/S TIWARI CONSTRUCTIONS,SONEBHADRA vs. ITO, WARD -3(4), SONEBHADRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Tiwari Constructions Dibulganj, V. Income Tax Officer, Anpara, Sonebhadra, U.P. Ward-3(4), Sonebhadra Pan-Aafhj0966G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.06.2022

E R SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.9.2018 of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee despite repeated notices issued to the assessee through RPAD as well as Email sent at the Email ID given in Form

ITO, WARD - 2(3), VARANASI vs. KRISHNA KUMAR UPADHYAY, VARANASI

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Krishana Kumar Upadhyay, Ward-2(3), Varanasi N-8/239-C, Surya Bhawan, Nevada, Sunderpur, Varanasi-221005 Pan-Aaopu6505G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Arvind Shukla, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2023 O R D E R

E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 03rd September, 2019 of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2016-17. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Varanasi is justified

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 01,, VARANASI vs. M/S RATANDEEP GOLD & DIAMOND PVT. LTD., CHANDAULI

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner M/S Ratandeep Gold & Diamond Of Income Tax, V. Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, M A Road, 19, New Mohal, Varanasi-211001, U.P. Near Balika Inter College, Mugalsarai, Chandauli- 232101, U.P. Pan:Aahcr4764Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 02/Vns/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 136/Vns/2020) Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Ratandeep Gold & The Deputy Commissioner Of Diamond Pvt. Ltd. V. Income Tax,Circle-1, M.A. Road 19, New Mohal, Varanasi-211001, U.P. Near Balika Inter College, Mugalsarai, Chandauli- 232101, U.P.

e) Dismissal of SLP by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. B G Shrike Construction Technology Private Limited (2019) 265 taxman 543(SC) The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Department has no evidence of the assessee investing Rs. 60 lacs in the furniture and fixture including decoration and furnishing of showroom

M/S RUGS MART,VARANASI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 03, VARANASI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesseeis in ITA No

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Rugs Mart Deputy Commissioner Of Barhi Ewada V. Income Tax (Cpc), Centralized District Varanasi-221207 Processing Center , U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (The Dcit , Circle-3, Varanasi, U.P.) Pan:Aalfr4883R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 43B of the 1961 Act has a heading that certain deductions to be allowed only on actual payment basis and it starts with a non obstante clause that 'notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, a deduction otherwise allowable under this Act in respect of...'. Thus, it stipulates that deduction shall be allowed only

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

E R SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the two separate orders of CIT(A) both dated 10.10.2019 for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, respectively. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee despite repeated notices were sent through RPAD as well email on the email ID given