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)

68 of the Act, while accepting the purchases, the said addition is liable to the deleted in accordance with the decisions cited above. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting this addition and accordingly uphold the same. 9. The next issue contested by the revenue relates to disallowance of Rs.26

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)

68 of the Act, while accepting the purchases, the said addition is liable to the deleted in accordance with the decisions cited above. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting this addition and accordingly uphold the same. 9. The next issue contested by the revenue relates to disallowance of Rs.26

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. 4. The assessee submitted that the above said amount of Rs.50.00 lakhs represent advance received for sale of a commercial space belonging to the assessee. It was submitted that it has entered into an agreement with M/s. Patridge Mercantile (P) Ltd in that regard and has received an advance of Rs.50.00 lakhs from

MANISH JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, (TDS), ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Manish Jaiswal, Addl.Cit (Tds), Prop. New Manish Medical V. Allahabad-211001, U.P. Agencies Pashupati Market, Gandhi Park, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan: Akdpj7675D (Appellant) (Respondent)

25,000/- during the year consideration from Shri Ashish Jaiswal. As per the provisions of section 194IA, the appellant was liable for deduction of tax @ 1% of the purchase consideration. The appellant did not deduct the tax, accordingly penalty proceeding u/s 271C were initiated and the AO imposed a penalty of Rs. 68

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

25,000/- from the profession and the drawings during the year itself was sufficient enough to maintain his daily expenses, presumption made by the ld. Assessing Officer for invoking section 68

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

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, 3 Khatauni

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.

68, 69, 69A, 698, 69C and 69D of the IT Act, 1961 and thereby the provision of section 1158BE is also inapplicable. The Appellant is unable to understand that under which notification or circular or any other publication the Ld. Assessing Officer has treated the currency deposited in the bank is liable to tax u/s 69/69A

MOHD. AHMAD,SONEBHADRA vs. ITO, WARD - 3 (3), SONEBHADRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri. Mohd Ahamad, V. Income Tax Officer, Pagia, Karma Road, Sonbhadra- Ward-Iii(3), Chandi Tiraha, 231216 Robertsganj Sonbhadra- Pan-Bkxpa2899B 231216 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri. Mohd Ahamad, V. Income Tax Officer, Pagia, Karma Road, Sonbhadra- Ward-3(3), Sonbhadra 231216 Pan-Bkxpa2899B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. K.R. Singh, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.06.2022 O R D E R

68,740/- under section 44AD of the Income Tax Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny in respect of larger cash deposits in the saving bank account of the assessee in comparison to the turnover declared by the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that a total of Rs. 1,19,16,791/- was deposited

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

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

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)

section (v) is with respect to and confined to a gratuity fund and does not have any relevance here. We, hence, answer the other questions of law framed, also against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. We dismiss the appeal, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs." 10.3.10 Thus, it can be clearly seen 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)

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

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

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)

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.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)

25 /VNS/2021 M.W.S. & Co. 306 and various other legal pronouncements (as have been referred to in the appellate order under reference itself. 2. Because in any case, Explanation 1 below clause (va), below section 36(1), which contained meaning of ‘due-date’ had been brought on the statute by the Finance Act 2021, w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and the same could

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)

25 /VNS/2021 M.W.S. & Co. 306 and various other legal pronouncements (as have been referred to in the appellate order under reference itself. 2. Because in any case, Explanation 1 below clause (va), below section 36(1), which contained meaning of ‘due-date’ had been brought on the statute by the Finance Act 2021, w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and the same could