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)

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 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

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)

43 taxmann.com 411(Raj.) and in CIT v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited reported in (2014) 49 taxmann.com 540(Raj) has decided this issue in favour of the tax-payer. Similarly, Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court has decided this issue in favour of the tax-payer. However, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court

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)

43 taxmann.com 411(Raj.) and in CIT v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited reported in (2014) 49 taxmann.com 540(Raj) has decided this issue in favour of the tax-payer. Similarly, Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court has decided this issue in favour of the tax-payer. However, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court

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

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

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

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)

43,010/- as against the declared income of I.T.A. Nos.36, 37, 38, 40 & 41/VNS/2022 Kamal Kumar Agrawal (HUF) v. ACIT,Central Circle, Varanasi 3 Rs.2,09,155/-, wherein two additions were made by AO; firstly, u/s 68 on bogus income u/s 44AD and second addition was made u/s 68 on bogus LTCG, vide assessment order dated 29.12.2020 passed

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)

43,010/- as against the declared income of I.T.A. Nos.36, 37, 38, 40 & 41/VNS/2022 Kamal Kumar Agrawal (HUF) v. ACIT,Central Circle, Varanasi 3 Rs.2,09,155/-, wherein two additions were made by AO; firstly, u/s 68 on bogus income u/s 44AD and second addition was made u/s 68 on bogus LTCG, vide assessment order dated 29.12.2020 passed

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)

43,010/- as against the declared income of I.T.A. Nos.36, 37, 38, 40 & 41/VNS/2022 Kamal Kumar Agrawal (HUF) v. ACIT,Central Circle, Varanasi 3 Rs.2,09,155/-, wherein two additions were made by AO; firstly, u/s 68 on bogus income u/s 44AD and second addition was made u/s 68 on bogus LTCG, vide assessment order dated 29.12.2020 passed

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)

43,010/- as against the declared income of I.T.A. Nos.36, 37, 38, 40 & 41/VNS/2022 Kamal Kumar Agrawal (HUF) v. ACIT,Central Circle, Varanasi 3 Rs.2,09,155/-, wherein two additions were made by AO; firstly, u/s 68 on bogus income u/s 44AD and second addition was made u/s 68 on bogus LTCG, vide assessment order dated 29.12.2020 passed

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)

43,010/- as against the declared income of I.T.A. Nos.36, 37, 38, 40 & 41/VNS/2022 Kamal Kumar Agrawal (HUF) v. ACIT,Central Circle, Varanasi 3 Rs.2,09,155/-, wherein two additions were made by AO; firstly, u/s 68 on bogus income u/s 44AD and second addition was made u/s 68 on bogus LTCG, vide assessment order dated 29.12.2020 passed

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

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.

Section 292C, there will be presumption that the contents of this documents found during survey are true and the documents belong to the assessee. This presumption is rebuttable, for which the assessee has to bring on record cogent/credible evidences to rebut the said presumption. There is a difference of Rs. 11,43,944/- in expenses as are recorded

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

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

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