ASHISH RANJAN,DARBHANGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DARBHANGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

48,953/-. There was default on the part of the\nemployer in remitting the TDS amount in Government Account and therefore, this TDS\namount was not reflected in 26AS and in turn, the TDS claim in the return was denied\nwhile processing return of income u/s.143(1). The appellant submitted that as there\nwas no mistake from the appellant

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

48,07,676/- being interest on MPLAD scheme. The issue is discussed on pages 4 & 5 of the assessment order. It was stated before the AO that interest earned on funds received under the Member of Parliament Local Development Fund scheme which was required to be refunded. The AO made the addition as the claim was not substantiated. 5.2.1 During

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

48,82,334/- was already done by the Ld. Assessing Officer vide the point No. 13 of the notice issued under the section 142(1) of the Act. 15. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case, the Pr. CIT has erred in applying the sub-section (a) and (b) of the explanation - 2 of the section

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

48,82,334/- was already done by the Ld. Assessing Officer vide the point No. 13 of the notice issued under the section 142(1) of the Act. 15. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case, the Pr. CIT has erred in applying the sub-section (a) and (b) of the explanation - 2 of the section

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

48,82,334/- was already done by the Ld. Assessing Officer vide the point No. 13 of the notice issued under the section 142(1) of the Act. 15. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case, the Pr. CIT has erred in applying the sub-section (a) and (b) of the explanation - 2 of the section

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

48,82,334/- was already done by the Ld. Assessing Officer vide the point No. 13 of the notice issued under the section 142(1) of the Act. 15. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case, the Pr. CIT has erred in applying the sub-section (a) and (b) of the explanation - 2 of the section

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

48,82,334/- was already done by the Ld. Assessing Officer vide the point No. 13 of the notice issued under the section 142(1) of the Act. 15. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case, the Pr. CIT has erred in applying the sub-section (a) and (b) of the explanation - 2 of the section

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

48,82,334/- was already done by the Ld. Assessing Officer vide the point No. 13 of the notice issued under the section 142(1) of the Act. 15. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case, the Pr. CIT has erred in applying the sub-section (a) and (b) of the explanation - 2 of the section

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

48,82,334/- was already done by the Ld. Assessing Officer vide the point No. 13 of the notice issued under the section 142(1) of the Act. 15. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case, the Pr. CIT has erred in applying the sub-section (a) and (b) of the explanation - 2 of the section

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

48,03,334/- from various banks,\nhowever only Rs.7,51,57,665/- has been declared as interest from banks in the P\nand L account. The AO also noted that the assessee also claimed TDS on all the\ninterest receipts shown in Form 26AS. Since assessee can claim TDS only in\ncase of income offered to tax, the AO treated

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

48,03,334/- from various banks,\nhowever only Rs.7,51,57,665/- has been declared as interest from banks in the P\nand L account. The AO also noted that the assessee also claimed TDS on all the\ninterest receipts shown in Form 26AS. Since assessee can claim TDS only in\ncase of income offered to tax, the AO treated

BBCPL-RCPL (JV),JAMUI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

48,03,177/-). It is clarified here that all deduction allowable under the provisions of sections 30 to 38 shall be deemed to have already been given full effect to and no further deduction under those sections shall be allowed. Further, assessee has received interest income of Rs. 25,09,727/- during the year. Hence, total from business

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

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