BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIR-2, P)ATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

34,169/- claimed as deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act, was not allowable on the sole ground that interest income is not entitled for benefit of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. 8. That the appellant states that the Id assessing officer disallowing claim of the appellant under Section

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, COR-2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

34,169/- claimed as deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act, was not allowable on the sole ground that interest income is not entitled for benefit of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. 8. That the appellant states that the Id assessing officer disallowing claim of the appellant under Section

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

34,169/- claimed as deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act, was not allowable on the sole ground that interest income is not entitled for benefit of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. 8. That the appellant states that the Id assessing officer disallowing claim of the appellant under Section

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

34,169/- claimed as deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act, was not allowable on the sole ground that interest income is not entitled for benefit of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. 8. That the appellant states that the Id assessing officer disallowing claim of the appellant under Section

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 2(1) PATNA, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

34,169/- claimed as deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act, was not allowable on the sole ground that interest income is not entitled for benefit of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. 8. That the appellant states that the Id assessing officer disallowing claim of the appellant under Section

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR vs. M/S ASHA REALTY DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

34,500\n10,10,398\nSmriti\nB.L.\n27.12%\n22355\n7641\n34.18\n1,79,05,051\n65,21,687\n2,40,47,530\n1,75,25,843\nSinghania\nAsha\n22.11%\n46165\n8754\n18.98\n19069421\nNil\n2,11,58,000\n2,11,58,000\nVihar Ph-\nIII\n3,96,94,241\n\n3.2. The learned AO made the addition to the total

RAVI LOCHAN SINGH,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

10 days of hearing beginning from 02.11.2022 to the last one being on 01.01.2025. It is seen that either adjournments have been taken by the Ld. AR or none have attended on certain other dates. In fact, on the last date of hearing also none attended and it is considered appropriate that this old pending matter may be disposed

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

TDS deducted thereon, register marked as NPT-02, details about cash receipt from different persons referred in seized material NPT-02. Reference also made to seized document BKC-03, MCT-10, MCT-13, NPT-01. Ld. Pr. CIT also asked the assessee to explain about the page wise description of receipt and payment written in the seized material marked

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

TDS deducted thereon, register marked as NPT-02, details about cash receipt from different persons referred in seized material NPT-02. Reference also made to seized document BKC-03, MCT-10, MCT-13, NPT-01. Ld. Pr. CIT also asked the assessee to explain about the page wise description of receipt and payment written in the seized material marked

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

TDS deducted thereon, register marked as NPT-02, details about cash receipt from different persons referred in seized material NPT-02. Reference also made to seized document BKC-03, MCT-10, MCT-13, NPT-01. Ld. Pr. CIT also asked the assessee to explain about the page wise description of receipt and payment written in the seized material marked

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

TDS deducted thereon, register marked as NPT-02, details about cash receipt from different persons referred in seized material NPT-02. Reference also made to seized document BKC-03, MCT-10, MCT-13, NPT-01. Ld. Pr. CIT also asked the assessee to explain about the page wise description of receipt and payment written in the seized material marked

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

TDS deducted thereon, register marked as NPT-02, details about cash receipt from different persons referred in seized material NPT-02. Reference also made to seized document BKC-03, MCT-10, MCT-13, NPT-01. Ld. Pr. CIT also asked the assessee to explain about the page wise description of receipt and payment written in the seized material marked

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

TDS deducted thereon, register marked as NPT-02, details about cash receipt from different persons referred in seized material NPT-02. Reference also made to seized document BKC-03, MCT-10, MCT-13, NPT-01. Ld. Pr. CIT also asked the assessee to explain about the page wise description of receipt and payment written in the seized material marked

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

TDS deducted thereon, register marked as NPT-02, details about cash receipt from different persons referred in seized material NPT-02. Reference also made to seized document BKC-03, MCT-10, MCT-13, NPT-01. Ld. Pr. CIT also asked the assessee to explain about the page wise description of receipt and payment written in the seized material marked

SEEMA SRIVASTAVA,PATNA vs. ITO,DC/AC-6, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

sections. 9. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission along with documents and evidences on or before date of hearing. 10. For that the appellant may be given opportunity of personal hearing physically/virtually at the time of hearing of the appeal. 11. For that the whole order is bad in fact