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, but under some other section of the Act. 8.5 The question whether unpaid trade

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, but under some other section of the Act. 8.5 The question whether unpaid trade

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, but under some other section of the Act. 8.5 The question whether unpaid trade

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, but under some other section of the Act. 8.5 The question whether unpaid trade

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)

section 68 of the Act and he also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Act for unexplained

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 I.T. Act. 2. Facts relating to the issue are stated in brief. The assessee

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

section 68 of the Act, to the returned income disclosed by the appellant as the amount deposited by the appellant

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

section 68. 5. Because the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural

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

section 68. 5. Because the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural

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. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice. Hence

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

section 68 is wrong ignoring the document filed before the learned CIT(A) on which remand report was called

M/S U TOLL CORPORATION LTD.,,VARANASI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 02, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh.Vijay Pal Rao & Hon’Ble Sh. Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S U Toll Corporation Ltd., V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Samne Ghat, Lanka, Varanasi, U.P. Income Tax, Circle-2, Pan-Aaacu6429Q Varanasi, U.P. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.06.2022

section 68 of the Act in respect of M/s U Toll Corporation Ltd. unsecured loan from two loan

SANJAI KUMAR GUPTA,GORAKHPUR vs. ITO, WARD - 2(2), GORAKHPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year:2010-11 Shrisanjai Kumar Gupta The Income Tax Officer Ismailpur, Gorakhpur- V. Ward 2(2), Gorakhpur-273001, 273005, U.P. U.P. Pan: Aiwpg7908H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 68 of the 1961 Act are not fulfilled/complied with. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

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

Section 68 dealing with cash credits , compliances of Section 69, 69A, 69B , 69C of the 1961 Act dealing

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/- by invoking provisions of Section 271C read with Section 194IA of the 1961 Act, was confirmed

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 68, 69, 69A, 698, 69C and 69D of the IT Act, 1961 and thereby the provision of section

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

section 68 of the Girijesh Kumar Tiwari Income Tax Act. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing

ABHAY KUMAR SHAHI,DEORIA vs. ITO, WARD - 3(4),, DEORIA

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

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Abhay Kumar Shahi, V. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Shahi Brick Field, Salempur, Ward-3(4), Deoria Deoria, U.P. Pan-Bipps5693R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Subhash Chand & Sh. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Advocates Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.03.2022

section 68 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has erred and acted illegally in confirming the same