ITO, WARD-2(1), BEGUSARAI, BEGUSARAI vs. MANISH KUMAR MOTANI, KHAGARIA, BIHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and CO of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajjpm4263D Co No. 02/Pat/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 442/Pat/2024 For A.Y. 2017-18) Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri A.K. Rastogi, S.K. Duta, Ars Revenue By : Shri A.H. Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

sections 40A(3) and 145, of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Business expenditure Allowability of (Business expenditure) Assessment year 2009-10-Assessee made various payments totaling to Rs 2.08 crores through mode other than account payee cheque or bank draft though each payment exceeded Rs. 20.000 per day Though Assessing Officer was of opinion that assessee inflated purchase expenditure

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. RAJESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as that of the assessee are dismissed

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

bogus purchase, fictitious sale, false commission receipt, or unverifiable expense was identified or quantified by the auditor. In the absence of such specific adverse findings, the assessee submitted that the AO was not justified in drawing sweeping conclusions solely on the basis of the audit report. 2.1.4.3. The ld AR submitted that the Assessing Officer, while framing the assessment under

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. RAJESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as that of the assessee are dismissed

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

bogus purchase, fictitious sale, false commission receipt, or unverifiable expense was identified or quantified by the auditor. In the absence of such specific adverse findings, the assessee submitted that the AO was not justified in drawing sweeping conclusions solely on the basis of the audit report. 2.1.4.3. The ld AR submitted that the Assessing Officer, while framing the assessment under

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), MUZAFFARPUR vs. RAJESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as that of the\nassessee are dismissed

bogus purchase,\nfictitious sale, false commission receipt, or unverifiable expense was\nidentified or quantified by the auditor. In the absence of such specific\nadverse findings, the assessee submitted that the AO was not\njustified in drawing sweeping conclusions solely on the basis of the\naudit report.\n2.1.4.3. The Id AR submitted that the Assessing Officer, while\nframing the assessment under

M/S PSP TRADING PVT LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 2 (1), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

145 taxmann.com 546\n(Bombay) and PCIT vs Agson Global (P.) Ltd, reported in [2022] 286 Taxman 519\n(Delhi).\n5. Kind perusal of the assessment order would envisage that the income as per the\nintimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act has vaguely been adopted without\nspecifying any reasons for adopting the same. It is in this

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

145(3), however, assessment has been framed u/s 143(3) instead of Section 144, which also makes the assessment erroneous. It may be noted that in case of Amhara Constructions Pvt. Ltd.. Patna which is also engaged in the business of government contracts involving construction and maintenance of roads, culverts, footpaths etc. has declared profits of 10% or more

BALKRISHNA BHALOTIA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMUI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

145(3), however, assessment has been framed u/s 143(3) instead of Section 144, which also makes the assessment erroneous. It may be noted that in case of Amhara Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Patna which is also engaged in the business of government contracts involving construction and maintenance of roads, culverts, footpaths etc. has declared profits of 10% or more

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

145(3), however, assessment has been framed u/s 143(3) instead of Section 144, which also makes the assessment erroneous. It may be noted that in case of Amhara Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Patna which is also engaged in the business of government contracts involving construction and maintenance of roads, culverts, footpaths etc. has declared profits of 10% or more