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)

section 68 are applicable and it is for the assessee to prove satisfactorily the nature and source of the monies……. ” 8.6 Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal reported in 2009 (7

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)

section 68 are applicable and it is for the assessee to prove satisfactorily the nature and source of the monies……. ” 8.6 Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal reported in 2009 (7

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)

section 68 are applicable and it is for the assessee to prove satisfactorily the nature and source of the monies……. ” 8.6 Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal reported in 2009 (7

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)

section 68 are applicable and it is for the assessee to prove satisfactorily the nature and source of the monies……. ” 8.6 Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ritu Anurag Agarwal reported in 2009 (7

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. Thus, on this ground, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed on merits. :-4-: 7

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

7. BECAUSE the premise on which addition under section 68 has been made by the ld. Assessing Officer being

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. 6. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the facts that were submitted before the Assessing Officer. It was also submitted that the sale consideration for sale of office space was determined at Rs. 80 lakhs and the above said company has paid advance of Rs. 50 lakhs. As per the terms

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 were not proved by him, the addition of Rs. 7 lakhs was justified. Though, it was obligatory

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

7,67,192/- as directed vide certificate no. 221471660200121dated 20.01.2021. 3. Because the dispute that had been settled under DTVSVS related to the assessment order dated 28.12.2016 passed originally under section 143(3) by the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Varanasi and the issue involved in the 1st appeal related to an altogether different issue

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

7,64,762/- as directed vide certificate no. 221475850200121 dated 20.01.2021. 3. Because the dispute that had been settled under DTVSVS related to the assessment order dated 28.12.2016 passed originally under section 143(3) by the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Varanasi and the issue involved in the 1st appeal related to an altogether different issue

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 44AB of the Act and Audit Report was filed alongwith the return of income. The assessee further explained that the loan of Rs. 40 Lac from Kumar Nagendra is explained by the assessee by filing a copy of account and bank statement of the party but the same was ignored by the authorities. Except this explanation the assessee

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)

7 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanjai Kumar Gupta paper book filed by the assessee, and submitted that these aforestated loans were availed by the assessee through cheque(s) of Rs. 5 lacs each issued by these two lenders namely Mr. Jitender Kumar and Mr. Jehangir Alam respectively , in favour of the assessee , and these cheques are reflecting in the bank

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)

7. We will first notice the provisions. "S.2(24) "income " includes — ** ** ** (x) any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any provident fund or superannuation fund or any fund set up under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 A(34 of 1948), or any other fund for the welfare of such employees". "S.36

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)

7. We will first notice the provisions. "S.2(24) "income " includes — ** ** ** (x) any sum received by the assessee from his employees as contributions to any provident fund or superannuation fund or any fund set up under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 A(34 of 1948), or any other fund for the welfare of such employees". "S.36

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 dealing with cash credits , compliances of Section 69, 69A, 69B , 69C of the 1961 Act dealing with unexplained investments, unexplained money, unexplained expenditure etc. , deducting of income-tax at source on payments made by tax-payers(Chapter XVII-B), prohibition on making payment otherwise than through prescribed banking modes beyond threshold limits(Section 40A(3) ), 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)

68,25,000/- , but he failed to deduct income-tax at source @1% of the purchase of property u/s 194IA , while making payments to seller , Mr. Ashish Jaiswal. The property was registered by Registering Authorities in favour of the assessee, without taking into cognizance of the fact that no income tax was deducted at source @1% u/s 194IA

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

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

7 of 1956 arises if a person carries on trade by himself or through his agent, or follows a profession or is in employment within the State, and to otherwise. The expression "trade" is not defined in the Act. "Trade" in its primary meaning is the exchanging of goods for goods for money; in its secondary meaning it is repeated