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

29-11-2022], wherein it has been held that - "Amendment brought by way of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) by Finance Act, 2014, with effect from 1-4-2015 was prospective in nature and thus, CSR expenditure incurred prior to 1-4-2015 was to be allowed." b) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Steel Authority of India

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

29-11-2022], wherein it has been held that - "Amendment brought by way of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) by Finance Act, 2014, with effect from 1-4-2015 was prospective in nature and thus, CSR expenditure incurred prior to 1-4-2015 was to be allowed." b) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Steel Authority of India

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

29-11-2022], wherein it has been held that - "Amendment brought by way of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) by Finance Act, 2014, with effect from 1-4-2015 was prospective in nature and thus, CSR expenditure incurred prior to 1-4-2015 was to be allowed." b) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Steel Authority of India

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

29-11-2022], wherein it has been held that - "Amendment brought by way of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) by Finance Act, 2014, with effect from 1-4-2015 was prospective in nature and thus, CSR expenditure incurred prior to 1-4-2015 was to be allowed." b) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Steel Authority of India

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

SRIRAM ENTERPRISES,PATNA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 76/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sriram Enterprises,………………………..........Appellant C/O. Nirmal & Associates, Nepali Kothi, Opposite Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001 [Pan:Aarfs8853J] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna,…………………………………..……………..Respondent, Bihar-800001 Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 5Th March, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 8Th, 2024 O R D E R

TDS and TCS, has claimed a net refund of Rs.1,79,11,640/-. Ld. PCIT also noted that the trade payables were almost 35% of the total turnover. Ld. PCIT also examined the details of sundry creditors exceeding Rs.5,00,000/- each and noted that the ld. Assessing Officer has failed to carry out necessary inquiry/verification about the creditworthiness

JOINT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX(IN-SITU), CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. NORTH BIHAR POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and COs of the\nassessee are dismissed

29,48,286/- to the total income\nof the assessee during the year under consideration.\n3.2. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the\nlearned CIT (A), who deleted the addition after examining the\norder issued by CERC relating to these expenses submitted by\nthe Id. Counsel of the assessee by recording a clearcut finding\nthat the expenses were not related

AL-RABIA MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL WELFARE & TRUST,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

section 143(2) was issued or not; whether the assessee has filed its regular return of income or not. The assessment order straightway commenced from the factum of carrying out a survey upon the premises of the assessee and thereafter reproduced the final survey report submitted to ld. CCIT, Patna. This letter is reproduced from first page of the assessment

CHINMASTIKA SIDHARTHA(JV),PATNA vs. CIT(A), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz)

section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the ld. Assessing Officer on 29.07.2016 and served upon the assessee. In response to the notice, ld. Advocate on behalf of assessee produced details and documents with written submission. On perusal of the return of income, it is seen that the 2 Chinmastika Sidhartha (JV) assessee has received an amount

JCIT(IN-SITU), CIRCLE-1, PATNA., PATNA vs. NORTH BIHAR POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and COs of the\nassessee are dismissed

29,48,286/- to the total income\nof the assessee during the year under consideration.\n3.2. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the\nlearned CIT (A), who deleted the addition after examining the\norder issued by CERC relating to these expenses submitted by\nthe Id. Counsel of the assessee by recording a clearcut finding\nthat the expenses were not related

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

29,42,852/-. Further, the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 2,58,34,383/- u/s 54 of the Act and had shown ‘NIL’ income from long term capital gains on sale of immovable property during the year under consideration. It was also noted that the assessee had received Rs. 4,95,59,000/- from Arnyana Engycon

ASHISH RANJAN,DARBHANGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DARBHANGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2-11-2023] (subsequent to the date when judgment in\nthis case was reserved). Section 199 of the Act, in our view cannot operate as\nimpediment to grant relief to the petitioner.\n10. In view of the aforesaid, the petition as well as the interim relief\napplication Chintan Bindra v. Dy. CIT [CM Appeal No. 6192 of 2022, dated 29