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

5. BECAUSE on a due consideration of the “aims and objects” and other provisions of Uttar Pradesh (Planning and Development) Act, 1973 under which the VDA/appellant had been constituted as an “Authority” for development of the ‘Specified Development Area’ as assigned to it and the provisions, as referred to in brief in Annexure-1 to the rounds of appeal

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

5. BECAUSE on a due consideration of the “aims and objects” and other provisions of Uttar Pradesh (Planning and Development) Act, 1973 under which the VDA/appellant had been constituted as an “Authority” for development of the ‘Specified Development Area’ as assigned to it and the provisions, as referred to in brief in Annexure-1 to the rounds of appeal

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

5. BECAUSE on a due consideration of the “aims and objects” and other provisions of Uttar Pradesh (Planning and Development) Act, 1973 under which the VDA/appellant had been constituted as an “Authority” for development of the ‘Specified Development Area’ as assigned to it and the provisions, as referred to in brief in Annexure-1 to the rounds of appeal

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

5. BECAUSE on a due consideration of the “aims and objects” and other provisions of Uttar Pradesh (Planning and Development) Act, 1973 under which the VDA/appellant had been constituted as an “Authority” for development of the ‘Specified Development Area’ as assigned to it and the provisions, as referred to in brief in Annexure-1 to the rounds of appeal

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. However, ld. PCIT has rejected the submissions and set aside the assessment order holding it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and to pass fresh assessment order. In his entire order, ld. PCIT has made various observations which can be summarized in the following manner:- (i) In so far as assessee’s contention that

ANJU JHUNJHUNWALA,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. However, ld. PCIT has rejected the submissions and set aside the assessment order holding it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and to pass fresh assessment order. In his entire order, ld. PCIT has made various observations which can be summarized in the following manner:- (i) In so far as assessee’s contention that

VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. However, ld. PCIT has rejected the submissions and set aside the assessment order holding it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and to pass fresh assessment order. In his entire order, ld. PCIT has made various observations which can be summarized in the following manner:- (i) In so far as assessee’s contention that

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. However, ld. PCIT has rejected the submissions and set aside the assessment order holding it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and to pass fresh assessment order. In his entire order, ld. PCIT has made various observations which can be summarized in the following manner:- (i) In so far as assessee’s contention that

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. However, ld. PCIT has rejected the submissions and set aside the assessment order holding it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and to pass fresh assessment order. In his entire order, ld. PCIT has made various observations which can be summarized in the following manner:- (i) In so far as assessee’s contention that

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)

5 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Manish Jaiswal vs. Addl. CIT to the Government . The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee being individual was not knowing the provisions of Section 194IA of the 1961 Act . The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that provisions of Section 271C is subject to provisions of Section 273B. The ld. Counsel

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

5 ITA.No.05/VNS/2020 Sri Indra Narayan Tripathi, Gorakhpur. Assessment Year 2014-15 declaring total income at Rs.12,55,150/-. The assessee is engaged in wholesale trading of Galla items i.e., Paddy, Rice and Wheat etc., as a proprietorship concern in the name and style of M/s. Shree Maa Durga Galla Bhandar. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue