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

TDS. 10. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the Ld. assessing officer has erred in disallowing Rs.66,47,34,169/- on the account of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act due to interest income from Fixed Deposit, Saving Account and other income. 11. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points

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

TDS. 10. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the Ld. assessing officer has erred in disallowing Rs.66,47,34,169/- on the account of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act due to interest income from Fixed Deposit, Saving Account and other income. 11. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points

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

TDS. 10. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the Ld. assessing officer has erred in disallowing Rs.66,47,34,169/- on the account of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act due to interest income from Fixed Deposit, Saving Account and other income. 11. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points

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

TDS. 10. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the Ld. assessing officer has erred in disallowing Rs.66,47,34,169/- on the account of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act due to interest income from Fixed Deposit, Saving Account and other income. 11. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points

MD IFTAKHAR ALAM,ARARIA vs. ITO, PURNEA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

4. For that on the facts and in circumstances of the case the assessee's status is BANK MITRA under Hon'ble Prime Minister Scheme on a mass scale Bank Accounts were opened with a specific view at zero balance and to facilitate such accounts persons were appointed to operate such accounts holders called Field Business Correspondence who also known

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

4,95,59,000/- from Arnyana Engycon Pvt. Ltd. and TDS of Rs. 2,47,795/- was deducted by the buyer I.T.A. No.: 715/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Seema Srivastava. u/s 194-IA of the Act, and it was also observed that the assessee had received Rs. 15,00,000/- from Chitwan Blenders & Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. as rent

BIHAR STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,PATNA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Section 40A(7) of the Act as been reported\nby the tax auditor at ₹98,23,310/- being debited to the Profit and Loss\naccount, whereas the same represented the total amount outstanding\nas per the balance sheet in the said account. The assessee submitted\nthat the actual gratuity paid during the year was ₹39,88,247/-, which

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR vs. M/S R.P.RAI ESTATE PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur M/S. R.P. Rai Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs 19, Goharua, Patliputra Colony, Patliputra, Patna- 800013. Pan: Aaccr 4972 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit, Dr Respondent By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.06.2020 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

TDS” followed by notices issued u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. In response to notices, the assessee has appeared time to time before the AO and furnished copy of audit report of business activities, bank statements, books of account, details of sundry creditors and payment certificate and a copy of 26AS statement. On examination of the various documents

PIONEER EDUCATION SOCIETY,HARYANA vs. ITO, PATNA

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. 405/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Pioneer Education Society,……….…….....……Appellant C-310/311, Unitech Business Zone Nirvana Country, South City-Ii, Sector-50, Haryana, Pin Code No.122018 [Pan:Aadap0174C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………….Respondent Ward-1(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, New Dak Bunglow, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Yatin Sharma, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Rinku Singh, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 24, 2025 O R D E R

58,04,004/- minus Rs.6,47,49,004/-) which was not shown as unsecured loan from GEMS, was added to the total income of the assessee. The ESL not responded to the notice issued under section 133(6) on 04.12.2018, therefore, the unsecured loan against the name of ESL as appearing in the books of account of the assessee during

JAINAM ORNAMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,GAYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GAYA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Jainam Ornament Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Chowk, Gaya, Gaya, Gaya, Bihar Vs. Bihar-823001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcj2187M Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

58,315/- on 08.11.2016 of ₹53,40,281/-, which was cash sales on 21.10.2016, and the same was deemed as unexplained cash credit and added to the income of the assessee by rejecting the books of accounts. Jainam Ornament Private Limited; A.Y. 2017-18 4. The ld. CIT (A) in the appellate proceedings, confirmed the addition made

SUDHIR KUMAR,PATNA vs. I.T.O., PATNA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sudhir Kumar, Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Vs. Patna. Patna. (Pan: Amlpk4871E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri K. M. Mishra, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Dhanbad, Camp Office At Patna Appeal No. 71/Cit(A)-Ii/13-14 Dated 25.02.2014 For A.Y. 2010-11 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-6(1), Patna, Dated 26.03.2013. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 18.10.2010 Reporting Total Income Of Rs.3,01,260/-. In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ld. Ao Sought Details On Various Aspects Of The Income Reported By The Assessee & Completed The Assessment By Making The Additions As Under: “Total Income As Per Return Rs. 3,01,260/- Add: As Discussed In Para D Rs. 3,42,708/- Add: As Discussed In Para E Rs. 14,03,744/- Add: As Discussed In Para F Rs. 58,92,354/- Total Income Rs. 89,40,066/-“

58,92,354/- Total Income Rs. 89,40,066/-“ 2 Sudhir Kumar A.Y. 2010-11 2.1. Assessee went into appeal before the ld. CIT(A) challenging the additions so made, who gave relief on certain additions and the appeal was partly allowed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in respect of additions sustained