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

Section 37 of the Act was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, w.e.f. 1.4.2015 and was applicable from Assessment Year 2015-16 and that the said provision was not applicable in the Assessment Year 2012-13 and that the application of the said provision is only prospective. 9. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal

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

Section 37 of the Act was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, w.e.f. 1.4.2015 and was applicable from Assessment Year 2015-16 and that the said provision was not applicable in the Assessment Year 2012-13 and that the application of the said provision is only prospective. 9. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal

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

Section 37 of the Act was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, w.e.f. 1.4.2015 and was applicable from Assessment Year 2015-16 and that the said provision was not applicable in the Assessment Year 2012-13 and that the application of the said provision is only prospective. 9. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal

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

Section 37 of the Act was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, w.e.f. 1.4.2015 and was applicable from Assessment Year 2015-16 and that the said provision was not applicable in the Assessment Year 2012-13 and that the application of the said provision is only prospective. 9. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal

GUPTA JI BROTHERS RICE PRIVATE LIMITED,DALMIA NAGAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3, GAYA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

TDS was under Section 194C of the Act (work) or section 194H (commissioner or brokerage) of the Act. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions on Ld. AR/DR and also gone through the documents before us. There is strength in the arguments of the Ld. Authorised Representative that the reasons advanced by the Ld. AO in making the disallowance

DHARMAVIR KUMAR,PATNA vs. DC/AC CIRCLE 4, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dharmavir Kumar Dc/Acit, Circle-4, C/O Naseeb Prasad, Income Tax Department, Lok Paithaninathpur,Narayan Chak, Nayak Jai Prakash Bhavan, New Vs. Phulwari. Dak Bunglow Road, Bihar-800002 Patna-800001, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Avzpk4382P Assessee By : Shri Sudeep Sinha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2025

TDS was also deducted under Section 194LA of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Though the assessee claimed the income to be exempt under Section 10(37

PAVAN KUMAR BHAGAT,SAHARSA vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), SAHARSA, SAHARA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 271AAC, 272A(1)(d) and 271F of the Act. 17. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration and as per information available with the Assessing Officer (hereinafter

DINA NATH YADAV,PATNA vs. ITO WARD - 4(2), PATNA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUAMR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

37) of the Act. 1.3 Aggrieved with this action, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) where also he could not succeed mainly on the ground that TDS u/s 194LA 2 Dina Nath Yadav of the Act done by the District Land Acquisition Officer was attracted only when non-agricultural land was involved. The second ground taken

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. NORTH BIHAR POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and COs of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section. Considering the same, the addition is deleted. Ground No. 8 is allowed.” 8.3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. We note that the learned CIT (A) in his finding stated that the said amount represented the interest received on advance given to Bajaj Electrical Ltd. It was not a contractual receipt

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

37,68,000\nPlaza\nS.G.\n97.37%\n19825\n14684\n74.07\n4,75,58,147\n3,74,24,102\n3,84,34,500\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

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH,BISHUNUPRA SIWAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 314/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Pramod Kumar Singh,……………………………Appellant Bishunupra, Siwan-841238, Bihar [Pan:Aavfs8485L] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-Muzaffarpur, Income Tax Office, Muzaffarpur-842001, Bihar

TDS and finally demand raised against the assessee was Rs.2,37,900/-. While giving the appeal effect of the order, a refund of Rs.4,93,763/- was due to the assessee. The said refund was processed on 03.08.2022 and on request, the assessee has deposited the tax as well as interest under section

ASHOK KUMAR,BHOJPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, ARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

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

section 145(3), was held that estimation of income by Assessing Officer was highly arbitrary, unreasonable and without any basis even if the assessee failed to produce books of account, details of receipt, etc. 9. It has been laid down by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Dabros Industries Company

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)

37,299/-. In the audit report of the assessee AOP in Form No. 3CB in Column 9, the profit-sharing ratio of two persons have been shown as 97% and 3%. In the audit report vide clause 23, the contract payment to both the members has been shown as Rs.2,24,00,832/- (Rs.2,29,28,180/- minus TDS Rs.5

I.T.O. vs. M/S KUMAR CONSTRUCLTION,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of the notices at the end of the assessee. Ultimately the ld. Assessing Officer gone through the books of account submitted before her and made these two additions by recording the following finding:- “Addition u/s 40A(3) for payments exceeding Rs.20,000/- through bearer cheques:- On perusal of Books

ANIL KUMAR,NALANDA vs. ITO, WARD- 2 (3), BIHARSHARIF

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 361/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anil Kumar National Faceless Assessment Centre M/S Raj Trading Company, Nfac, Delhi Harnaut, Nalanda, Patna-803110 Vs Bihar [Pan : Azopc268H] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

Section 40(a)(ia). 10. For that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is wrong, illegal and unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 11. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission along with documents and evidences on or before date of hearing. 12. For that the appellant

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

37,64,839/- @ 38.60% i.e. Rs. 14,53,228/- which is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has affirmed the order of Ld. AO and not allowing payment of rent of Rs. 6,60,000/- in respect of TDS on rent is wrong, illegal

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

37,64,839/- @ 38.60% i.e. Rs. 14,53,228/- which is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has affirmed the order of Ld. AO and not allowing payment of rent of Rs. 6,60,000/- in respect of TDS on rent is wrong, illegal

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

37,64,839/- @ 38.60% i.e. Rs. 14,53,228/- which is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has affirmed the order of Ld. AO and not allowing payment of rent of Rs. 6,60,000/- in respect of TDS on rent is wrong, illegal