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

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.

Section 68, the AO treated such sum aggregating to Rs. 1,55,00,534/- as unexplained cash credits/ deposits u/s 68 of the 1961 Act which stood added by the AO to the total income of the assessee and taxed u/s 115BBE of the 1961 Act at the rate I.T.A. No137/VNS/2020 Assessment Year:2017-18 4

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

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)

4 The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd A.Ys 2009-10, 2014-15 & 2020-21 40A(3) will not get attracted to these payments, since the relevant expenditure has not been claimed as expenditure in the Profit and Loss account. 5.4 In our view, there is fallacy in the above said argument of the assessee. The fact remains that the freight charges

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)

4 The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd A.Ys 2009-10, 2014-15 & 2020-21 40A(3) will not get attracted to these payments, since the relevant expenditure has not been claimed as expenditure in the Profit and Loss account. 5.4 In our view, there is fallacy in the above said argument of the assessee. The fact remains that the freight charges

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)

4 The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd A.Ys 2009-10, 2014-15 & 2020-21 40A(3) will not get attracted to these payments, since the relevant expenditure has not been claimed as expenditure in the Profit and Loss account. 5.4 In our view, there is fallacy in the above said argument of the assessee. The fact remains that the freight charges

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)

4 The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd A.Ys 2009-10, 2014-15 & 2020-21 40A(3) will not get attracted to these payments, since the relevant expenditure has not been claimed as expenditure in the Profit and Loss account. 5.4 In our view, there is fallacy in the above said argument of the assessee. The fact remains that the freight charges

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1), VARANASI vs. M/S BHGYASHREE VINCOM PVT. LTD.,, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year:2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, V. M/S Bhagyashree Vincom Pvt. Ltd. Ward-3(1) Sa-2/415, A-9. Prem Chandra Varanasi Nagar Colony, Pandeypur Varanasi Tan/Pan:Aaecb7289D (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.01/Vns/2021 [Arising Out Of Ita No.132/Vns/2020] Assessment Year:2017-18 M/S Bhagyashree Vincom Pvt. Ltd. V. The Income Tax Officer, Sa-2/415, A-9. Prem Chandra Ward-3(1) Nagar Colony, Pandeypur Varanasi Varanasi Tan/Pan:Aaecb7289D (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

4. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee has furnished the return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 on 29.1.2018 showing Nil income. The said return was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under CASS and accordingly notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee

AJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL (HUF),VARANASI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, VARANASI

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharay: 2014-15 Ajay Kumar Agrawal (Huf), V Assistant Commissioner Of 72, Jawahar Nagar Extension Bhelupur, . Income Tax, Central Circle, Varanasi-221005, Uttar Pradesh, India Varanasi Pan-Aagha9912D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Asim Zafar, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.07.2022 O R D E R

68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee challenged the original assessment order and filed appeal before the CIT(A) and thereafter, the matter was carried to this Tribunal in ITA No.50/VNS/2019. In the meantime, the assessee opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 to settle the tax disputes arising from the original assessment order passed under section

SUJIT KUMAR AGRAWAL (HUF),VARANASI vs. ACIT, CC, VARANASI

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharay: 2014-15 Sujit Kumar Agrawal (Huf) V Assistant Commissioner Of 72, Jawahar Nagar Extension Bhelupur, . Income Tax, Central Circle, Varanasi-221005, Uttar Pradesh Varanasi Pan-Aaohs5397C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Asim Zafar, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.07.2022 O R D E R

68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee challenged the original assessment order and filed appeal before the CIT(A) and thereafter, the matter was carried to this Tribunal in ITA No.53/VNS/2019. In the meantime, the assessee opted for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 to settle the tax disputes arising from the original assessment order passed under section

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

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. 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

GIRIJESH KUMAR TIWARI,MAHARAJGANJ vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4), MAHARAJGANJ

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2017-18 Girijesh Kumar Tiwari, V. Income Tax Officer, S/O Krishna Mohan Tiwari, Siswa Ward-1(4), Maharajganj, Bazar, Maharajganj, U.P. Uttar Pradesh Pan-Agipt8383R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.01.2023

4,61,681/- under section 68 of the Girijesh Kumar Tiwari Income Tax Act. The assessee challenged the action

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

4. BECAUSE the authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts in adding Rs.10,92,465/- by invoking section 68

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)

68,250/- levied by ld. Assessing Officer u/s 271C read with Section 194IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “ the AO”), vide penalty order dated 31.03.2019 in Order No. Assessment Year: 2016-17 Manish Jaiswal vs. Addl. CIT ITBA/PNL/F/15B(3)/2018-19/1015613185(1) . We have heard both the parties in Open Court through physical hearing mode

VIJAY KUMAR LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SAVITRI DEVI,GHAZIPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 03(05), GHAZIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 68 of the Act. The learned CIT(A) also confirmed the same. 3. Learned DR submitted that the assessee has claimed to have received advances from various government departments. However, the assessee did not furnish any confirmation letter obtained from them. 4