M.W.S. & CO.,BHADOHI vs. DY. C.I.T., RANGE - 1, VARANASI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M.W.S. & Co., Naya Bazar V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Road, Bhadohi-221401, Uttar Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Pradesh, India Bengaluru [Jurisdictional Assessing Pan-Aaffm2003E Officer Being Dy./Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Varanasi, U.P. (Appellant) (Respondent)

148 /Alld/2016 for ay: 2005-06, vide orders dated 12.08.2021, wherein the tribunal considered the amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 in Section 36(1)(va) and 43B , and decided this issue in favour of the tax- payer , by holding as under: 10. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record. We have observed that

M.W.S. & CO.,BHADOHI vs. DY. C.I.T., RANGE - 1, VARANASI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M.W.S. & Co., Naya Bazar V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Road, Bhadohi-221401, Uttar Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Pradesh, India Bengaluru [Jurisdictional Assessing Pan-Aaffm2003E Officer Being Dy./Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Varanasi, U.P. (Appellant) (Respondent)

148 /Alld/2016 for ay: 2005-06, vide orders dated 12.08.2021, wherein the tribunal considered the amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 in Section 36(1)(va) and 43B , and decided this issue in favour of the tax- payer , by holding as under: 10. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record. We have observed that

BHUPENDRA NATH PANDEY,VARANASI vs. ACIT, R - 03, VARANASI

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Bhupendra Nath Pandey Assistant Director Of Income 6-159/27, Kashi Enclave V. Tax (Cpc), Centralized Colony, Pahadiya Sarnath, Processing Center , Varanasi-221007, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 (The Acit, Range-3, Varanasi, U.P.) Pan:Ajfpp1273J (Appellant) (Respondent)

148 /Alld/2016 for ay: 2005-06, vide orders dated 12.08.2021, wherein the tribunal considered the amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 in Section 36(1)(va) and 43B , and decided this issue in favour of the tax-payer , by holding as under: 10. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record. We have observed that

LAWKUSH SHARMA,SONEBHADRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3 (5), SONEBHADRA

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2018-19 Lawkush Sharma Assistant Director Of Income 14-495, V.V. Colony, V. Tax (Cpc), Centralized Shakti Nagar, Sonebhadra- Processing Center , 231222, U.P. Bengaluru-560500 Pan:Artps9822Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

148 /Alld/2016 for ay: 2005-06, vide orders dated 12.08.2021, wherein the tribunal considered the amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 in Section 36(1)(va) and 43B , and decided this issue in favour of the tax-payer , by holding as under: 10. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record. We have observed that

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)

148 /Alld/2016 for ay: 2005-06, vide orders dated 12.08.2021, wherein the tribunal considered the amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 in Section 36(1)(va) and 43B , and decided this issue in favour of the tax-payer , by holding as under: 10. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record. We have observed that

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 2, VARANASI

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 233B47 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), also the report under that section]; (f) where regular books of account are not maintained by the assessee, the return is accompanied by a statement indicating the amounts of turnover or, as the case may be, gross receipts, gross profit, expenses and net profit of the business

MOUSAMI CHOUDHURY,VARANASI vs. DY. CIT, RANGE - 02,, VARANASI

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

section 233B47 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), also the report under that section]; (f) where regular books of account are not maintained by the assessee, the return is accompanied by a statement indicating the amounts of turnover or, as the case may be, gross receipts, gross profit, expenses and net profit of the business

ABHAY KUMAR SHAHI,DEORIA vs. ITO, WARD - 3(4),, DEORIA

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Abhay Kumar Shahi, V. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Shahi Brick Field, Salempur, Ward-3(4), Deoria Deoria, U.P. Pan-Bipps5693R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Subhash Chand & Sh. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Advocates Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.03.2022

68 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has erred and acted illegally in confirming the same. 2. Because the income of the assessee was to be decided as per section 44AD of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred and acted illegally in confirming the same. 3. Because the income based on deposit is subject

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

148 of the Act were not valid in the given facts and circumstances of the case”. 36. In that case the registration u/s 12AA of the Income tax Act was granted by the CIT in pursuance of its order dated 25.07.2005 the Assessing officer while examining the issue during the course of the assessment took the view that entire activities

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

148 of the Act were not valid in the given facts and circumstances of the case”. 36. In that case the registration u/s 12AA of the Income tax Act was granted by the CIT in pursuance of its order dated 25.07.2005 the Assessing officer while examining the issue during the course of the assessment took the view that entire activities

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

148 of the Act were not valid in the given facts and circumstances of the case”. 36. In that case the registration u/s 12AA of the Income tax Act was granted by the CIT in pursuance of its order dated 25.07.2005 the Assessing officer while examining the issue during the course of the assessment took the view that entire activities

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

148 of the Act were not valid in the given facts and circumstances of the case”. 36. In that case the registration u/s 12AA of the Income tax Act was granted by the CIT in pursuance of its order dated 25.07.2005 the Assessing officer while examining the issue during the course of the assessment took the view that entire activities

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.

148-149 of the paper book . The ld. CIT DR submitted that the matter can be set aside and restored back for fresh adjudication. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee objected and submitted that the matter cannot be set aside as details were given/furnished before the AO, and it is the AO who failed to take cognizance of the same

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)

148 of the Act on 29.3.2019. 3. In this regard the Assessing Officer referred to the report given by the Investigation Wing in the case of another alleged paper company named M/s. Anjali Suppliers Pvt. Limited. Since the investigation wing has reported that the assessee has availed accommodation entry of Rs. 50 lakhs, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee

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

1. BECAUSE the proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act by the issuance of notice dated 30.03.2016 under section 148 has neither Raghawendra Pratap Singh been validly initiated nor concluded in accordance with law, the entire proceedings are vitiated. 2. BECAUSE merely deposit in the regular bank account by the appellant cannot be the 'material

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

148, the assessee has filed a return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,27,500/- with agriculture income of Rs. 25,000/- for rate purpose. The assessee explained the deposit in the bank account of his son for the purpose of purchasing of apartment in Lucknow and the source of deposit is to the extent

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)

148 was issued by the AO vide registered post and the assessee has not submitted any evidences to substantiate its contentions that notices were not served upon the assessee , and hence this contention raised by the assessee as to non serving of notices was rejected by ld. CIT(A) as devoid of any merit. The second grievance of the assessee

KAMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL (HUF),VARANASI vs. A.C.I.T., C.C., VARANASI

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2013-14 Assessment Year:2015-16 Assessment Year:2017-18 Assessment Year:2014-15 Assessment Year:2016-17 Kamal Kumar Agrawal (Huf) A.C.I.T., 46, Jawahar Nagar Extension, V. Central Circle, Bhelupur, Varanasi-221005,U.P. Varanasi. Pan:Aaghk4211B (Appellant) (Respondent)

148, declaring total income at Rs.2,09,155/- . Statutory notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the AO from time to time, as are recorded in the assessment order. The assessee objected to the reopening of the case by the AO by invoking provisions of Section 147, which objections were disposed off by the AO vide

KAMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL (HUF),VARANASI vs. A.C.I.T., C.C., VARANASI

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

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2013-14 Assessment Year:2015-16 Assessment Year:2017-18 Assessment Year:2014-15 Assessment Year:2016-17 Kamal Kumar Agrawal (Huf) A.C.I.T., 46, Jawahar Nagar Extension, V. Central Circle, Bhelupur, Varanasi-221005,U.P. Varanasi. Pan:Aaghk4211B (Appellant) (Respondent)

148, declaring total income at Rs.2,09,155/- . Statutory notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the AO from time to time, as are recorded in the assessment order. The assessee objected to the reopening of the case by the AO by invoking provisions of Section 147, which objections were disposed off by the AO vide