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)

8 The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd A.Ys 2009-10, 2014-15 & 2020-21 8.3 We heard the parties and perused the record. From the nature of transactions explained above, we notice that, for every credit of the amount against a farmer’s name, there is corresponding debit for purchase of raw material. This shows that the amount credited

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)

8 The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd A.Ys 2009-10, 2014-15 & 2020-21 8.3 We heard the parties and perused the record. From the nature of transactions explained above, we notice that, for every credit of the amount against a farmer’s name, there is corresponding debit for purchase of raw material. This shows that the amount credited

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)

8 The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd A.Ys 2009-10, 2014-15 & 2020-21 8.3 We heard the parties and perused the record. From the nature of transactions explained above, we notice that, for every credit of the amount against a farmer’s name, there is corresponding debit for purchase of raw material. This shows that the amount credited

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)

8 The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd A.Ys 2009-10, 2014-15 & 2020-21 8.3 We heard the parties and perused the record. From the nature of transactions explained above, we notice that, for every credit of the amount against a farmer’s name, there is corresponding debit for purchase of raw material. This shows that the amount credited

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. The Cross Objection of the assessee, which is in support of the order of the ld. CIT(A), is not being adjudicated nor we are giving any finding

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASEE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

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 or business in as much

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

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 or business in as much

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASEE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

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 or business in as much

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

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 or business in as much

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

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

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

8. BECAUSE apart from withdrawal from Alaknanda Hospital P. Limited, the appellant has a cash receipt of Rs.3,25,000/- from the profession and the drawings during the year itself was sufficient enough to maintain his daily expenses, presumption made by the ld. Assessing Officer for invoking section 68

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

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

8. Because the allegation of A.O. in remand report that assessee failed to prove identity, genuineness of transaction and credit worthiness of the lenders and did not produce any evidence to prove ingredients of section 68

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)

8 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sanjai Kumar Gupta additions, or the matter may be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits. 4.2 The ld. Sr. DR would submit that the assessee has not filed bank statements of lenders , and further that ingredients of Section 68

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

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

RAEES ALAM SIDDIQUI,GHAZIPUR vs. DY. C.I.T., RANGE - 1, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

68,17,250/-. An assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 6.12.2017 determining total income at Rs. 82,90,220/-. During the course of assessment, it was found that sundry creditors and other expenses were unverifiable. Therefore, the ld. AO rejected the assessee’s books of accounts under section 145(3) and determined the assessee