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

Section 60 to 63 of the 1961 Act deals with revocable transfer of assets, and for creation of valid trust, transfer of the assets for charitable purposes should be irrevocable, which as per AO is not fulfilled in the case of the assessee. The AO observed that the assessee is neither in the field of education , nor in the field

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

Section 60 to 63 of the 1961 Act deals with revocable transfer of assets, and for creation of valid trust, transfer of the assets for charitable purposes should be irrevocable, which as per AO is not fulfilled in the case of the assessee. The AO observed that the assessee is neither in the field of education , nor in the field

KAHM PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,VARANASI vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year:2018-19 M/S Kahm Properties Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dc/Acit B-21/192, Kamaccha Central Circle Varanasai Varanasi Tan/Pan:Aacck7739F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri V. K. Jindal Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26 09 2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 29 09 2023

4) shall be deemed to be amount of income under-reported for the preceding year in the following order— :-7-: (a) the preceding year immediately before the year in which the receipt, deposit or investment appears, being the first preceding year; and (b) where the amount added or deducted in the first preceding year is not sufficient to cover

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)

transfer of immovable property(other than agricultural land). Show cause notice (SCN) dated 20.03.2019 was issued by the AO u/s 271C read with Section 274 of the 1961 Act, through email and also by Registered post, show-causing assessee as to why penalty u/s 271C be not levied for aforesaid failure. The assessee did not responded to aforesaid SCN , which

ANJU JHUNJHUNWALA,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

4. Notice under section 142(1) dated 28.06.2017 179 5. - Reply to above referred notice dated 28.06.2017, 180-181 submitted on 29.06.2017 , along with Copies of : (i) Income & Expenditure Account of appellant HUF 182 as on 31.03.2015 183 (ii) Capital Account of HUF as on 31.03.2015 184 (iii) Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2015 6. 185 Additional information sought

SARVESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

4. Notice under section 142(1) dated 28.06.2017 179 5. - Reply to above referred notice dated 28.06.2017, 180-181 submitted on 29.06.2017 , along with Copies of : (i) Income & Expenditure Account of appellant HUF 182 as on 31.03.2015 183 (ii) Capital Account of HUF as on 31.03.2015 184 (iii) Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2015 6. 185 Additional information sought

VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

4. Notice under section 142(1) dated 28.06.2017 179 5. - Reply to above referred notice dated 28.06.2017, 180-181 submitted on 29.06.2017 , along with Copies of : (i) Income & Expenditure Account of appellant HUF 182 as on 31.03.2015 183 (ii) Capital Account of HUF as on 31.03.2015 184 (iii) Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2015 6. 185 Additional information sought

GOPI KRISHNA VINOD KUMAR HUF,GORAKHPUR vs. PCIT,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

4. Notice under section 142(1) dated 28.06.2017 179 5. - Reply to above referred notice dated 28.06.2017, 180-181 submitted on 29.06.2017 , along with Copies of : (i) Income & Expenditure Account of appellant HUF 182 as on 31.03.2015 183 (ii) Capital Account of HUF as on 31.03.2015 184 (iii) Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2015 6. 185 Additional information sought

VINOD KUMAR SARAF HUF,GORAKHPUR vs. PCIT,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

4. Notice under section 142(1) dated 28.06.2017 179 5. - Reply to above referred notice dated 28.06.2017, 180-181 submitted on 29.06.2017 , along with Copies of : (i) Income & Expenditure Account of appellant HUF 182 as on 31.03.2015 183 (ii) Capital Account of HUF as on 31.03.2015 184 (iii) Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2015 6. 185 Additional information sought

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.

price of unregistered purchase is already less than other purchases there remains no scope for suppression of profit in this respect. I have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Appellant submitted the reconciliation of the value of the stock found during the survey with the value of actual stock as per audited statement and no adverse inference

INDRA NARAYAN TRIPATHI,GORAKHPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 02,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

4. The Learned Sr. D.R. on the other hand, opposed the application of the assessee for condonation of delay. 5. After hearing both the sides, we are of the considered view that assessee has shown sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal , and in view of this we in exercise of powers