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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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.

68,890/- . This entry has come to the debit of ‘Printing and Stationary’ account from ‘Others Printing and Stationary’ Account , on 31.03.2017 . In other ‘Others Printing and Stationary’ Account, there are eight debits namely Gopal Book Depot of Rs. 3,280/-, Rs.9,546/- , Rs.9,700/-, Kamal Book Depot of Rs. 9,503/- ,Rs.9,550/- and Rs.9,700/- & Mahakal General Stores

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

MOHD. AHAMAD,SONEBHADRA vs. ITO, WARD - III(3), SONBHADRA

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

3. The assessee stated to be an agriculturist and also dealing in wholesale agriculture produce as per the license under U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam. The assessee filed his return of income on 15.07.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 2,68,740/- under section 44AD of the Income Tax Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny

MOHD. AHAMAD,SONBHADRA vs. ITO, WARD - III(3), SONBHADRA

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

3. The assessee stated to be an agriculturist and also dealing in wholesale agriculture produce as per the license under U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam. The assessee filed his return of income on 15.07.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 2,68,740/- under section 44AD of the Income Tax Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny

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

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

3. The assessee stated to be an agriculturist and also dealing in wholesale agriculture produce as per the license under U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam. The assessee filed his return of income on 15.07.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 2,68,740/- under section 44AD of the Income Tax Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny

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

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