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

2) LalaIndra Sun In Re (1940) 8 ITR 187 (Alld) (3) NarasinghaKar& CO. v, CIT (1978) 113 ITR 712(Ori) 9.11 From the aforesaid, it is clear that the appellant "Authority" is not engaged in carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity in rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce

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

2) LalaIndra Sun In Re (1940) 8 ITR 187 (Alld) (3) NarasinghaKar& CO. v, CIT (1978) 113 ITR 712(Ori) 9.11 From the aforesaid, it is clear that the appellant "Authority" is not engaged in carrying on any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity in rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce

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

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

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

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

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

2), Varanasi under section 143(3) of the Act] in relation to an issue relating to addition of Rs. 61,42,646/- by treating “long term capital gain” (disclosed by the appellant) as bogus, under section 68. 5. Because the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice.” 5. The learned

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

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

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

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.

56,91,097/- there is difference of 15,991 which is also in respect of sales not recorded properly and at finalization of account and after reconciliation with vat return the same was entered. The copy of sales bill and ledger is enclosed at page no 127-130. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 45,608 is totally unjustified

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.

Section 142(1) were issued by AO from time to time, and claimed to be served upon the assessee. As the assessment proceedings 2 Assessment Year: 2017-18 DCIT, Circle-1, Varanasi v. Mr. Ganesh Prasad, Varanasi in the case of the assessee was getting time barred on 31.12.2019, a show cause notice(SCN) dated 17.12.2019 was issued

THE SPRINGER EDUCATION FOUNDATION,,GORAKHPUR vs. CIT (E), LUCKNOW

68 (Allahabad) on the same issue, wherein it was held: "5. In view of the principle of law which has been laid down in the aforesaid decision, there is no basis or foundation in the submission that the delay in filing the application for an exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act beyond the statutory date

ITO, WARD - 2(3), VARANASI vs. KRISHNA KUMAR UPADHYAY, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Krishana Kumar Upadhyay, Ward-2(3), Varanasi N-8/239-C, Surya Bhawan, Nevada, Sunderpur, Varanasi-221005 Pan-Aaopu6505G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Arvind Shukla, Advocate Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2023 O R D E R

56,300/- as sale proceeds and applying a GP rate of 24%, ignoring ITO vs. Krishana Kumar Upadhyay the fact that the assessee had failed to produce any evidences regarding purchases and expenses before the AO during the assessment proceedings. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal