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

V. ITA No. 334/PAT/2024; AY 2017-18: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 24/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060086025(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for Assessment Year 2017-18 by the ld. First Appellate Authority

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

V. ITA No. 334/PAT/2024; AY 2017-18: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 24/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060086025(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for Assessment Year 2017-18 by the ld. First Appellate Authority

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

V. ITA No. 334/PAT/2024; AY 2017-18: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 24/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060086025(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for Assessment Year 2017-18 by the ld. First Appellate Authority

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

V. ITA No. 334/PAT/2024; AY 2017-18: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 24/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060086025(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for Assessment Year 2017-18 by the ld. First Appellate Authority

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

TDS, TCS and self- assessment tax. Ground No. 10-General in nature. During the course of appellate proceedings appellant raised additional ground which is as under: - “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- on the basis of seized documents found in third party

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

TDS, TCS and self- assessment tax. Ground No. 10-General in nature. During the course of appellate proceedings appellant raised additional ground which is as under: - “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- on the basis of seized documents found in third party

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

MASUDAN TANTI,BHAGALPUR vs. CIT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14

1 Cr., therefore, the provision of section 44AD of the Act are not applicable. The assessee has not filed any evidence like purchase, sale bills or the details of TDS/TCS, if any, for the business of liquor nor even the copy of license in the name of Shri Om Prakash Bhagat and copy of any agreement with Shri Om Prakash

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

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

v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 , a three- judge Bench of this Court discussed the scope of section 31(3)(a ) of the 1922 Act, which 8 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 M/s. Kumar Construction is almost identical to section 251(1)(a) of the 1961 Act. The Court held as under: "...If an appeal lies, section

ASHISH RANJAN,DARBHANGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DARBHANGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

9,43,570/- was created on account of\nmismatch of Tax Deducted at source.\n2.2. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Id. CIT (A) by\nobserving and holding as under:-\n“8. The Ground No. 2, 3, 5 and 6 raised by the appellant are related to the same issue\ni.e. denial of TDS amounting to Rs.8

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

1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), an order in revision under this section may be passed at any time in the case of an order which has been passed in consequence