GURUDWARA BAL LEELA MAINI SANGAT TRUST,PATNA vs. DC/AC, EXEMPTION, PATNA

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

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

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 07.02.2024. 1.1 In this case, the assessee is a charitable trust registered u/s 12A of the Act through an order dated 27.12.2019. The Ld. AO made the following two additions: (i) depreciation

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

addition of total receipt of cash as income which were deposited into bank account collected from sale of liquor was illegal and against the law of Natural Justice.” 6 MasudanTanti, AY: 2013-14 6. The bank statement was also available before the Ld. AO which shows frequent cash deposit and withdrawal and while the Ld. AO has not taken into

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)’].

addition of Rs. 1,83,58,108/- as income from house property. Further, estimated the income of the assessee applying net profit of 8% on the gross contract receipts of Rs. 2,39,81,246/- which works out to be Rs. 19,18,500/-. The ld. AO therefore assessed the income of the assessee

MAHUA COOPERATIVE COLD STORAGE LTD, MAHUA,VAISHALI vs. ADIT,CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

addition on account of interest payable to NCDC is, therefore, liable to be deleted. 7) For that the appellant has carried forward loss of Rs. 50,33,596/- and carried forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 44,65,970/- which should have been allowed against the income

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

income of the assessee. 6.2. The learned CIT (A) in the appellate proceedings, allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee treated the interest on capital funds as per the directions of State Government, therefore no addition is called for. The operative part of CIT (A)’s order is as under: - “5.1 Ground no. 6: In this

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

income of the assessee.\n6.2. The learned CIT (A) in the appellate proceedings,\nallowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the\nassessee treated the interest on capital funds as per the\ndirections of State Government, therefore no addition is called\nfor. The operative part of CIT (A)'s order is as under:\n\"5.1\nGround

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

income of the assessee.\n6.2. The learned CIT (A) in the appellate proceedings,\nallowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the\nassessee treated the interest on capital funds as per the\ndirections of State Government, therefore no addition is called\nfor. The operative part of CIT (A)'s order is as under:\n“5.1\nGround

PUSHPA KUMARI,MUZAFFARPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.08/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Pushpa Kumari ………. Appellant Pawapuri Bihar, N.H. 28, Bhagwanpur, Muzaffarpur, Bihar-842001. (Pan: Abgpk2480B)

depreciation. Income assessed at Rs.68,24,649/-. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but after filing the appeal could not place any documents before the first appellate authority and in the absence of any explanation from assessee’s side, ld. CIT(A) had no option but to confirm the addition

RAKESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.85 & 86/Pat/2017 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

addition Depreciation for the year Electricals & equipments 17,013 2,552 Furniture & fixture 44,742 4,474 Tools & equipments 91,252 13,263 Computer 24,604 (new) 14,762 Printer 5,000 (new) 840 From above chart, it is evident that to manufacture/produce ultrasonography and X-ray machines which resulted In sale of Rs.5,10,49,366/- & net profit

RAKESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.85 & 86/Pat/2017 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

addition Depreciation for the year Electricals & equipments 17,013 2,552 Furniture & fixture 44,742 4,474 Tools & equipments 91,252 13,263 Computer 24,604 (new) 14,762 Printer 5,000 (new) 840 From above chart, it is evident that to manufacture/produce ultrasonography and X-ray machines which resulted In sale of Rs.5,10,49,366/- & net profit

ARUN KUMAR GUPTA,SIWAN vs. DC/AC, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

Income Tax (Appeals), 1 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Arun Kumar Gupta National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 28th October, 2021 passed for A.Y. 2016-17. 2. Though the assessee has taken nine grounds of appeal, but his only grievance is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.7,52,396/-, which was added

ACIT vs. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WELFARE HUMAN RESOURCES,

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed while the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed.] 6.1 The Second Proviso relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2008, w.e.f. 1.4.2008. As the second reopening was done on 02.04.2009, being

ARYAN FLAVOURS,NOIDA vs. DC/AC CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ita No. 369 /Pat/2025 ( Asstt. Year: 2018-19) Aryan Flavours Vs Dc/Ac Circle-1, Patna B-8, Sector-6, Noida, Gautam Muzaffarpur, Muzaffarpur, Bihar Buddha Nagar, Noida, Noida, Up- 201301 Patna. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfa3538J Assessee By : Sh. Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit. Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2026 Order Per Rajesh Kumar, Am:

income of the after allowing depreciation @ 10% on the said expenditure. 3. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this issue by noting that the said expenditure was not allowable under the provisions of section 37(1) which expressly excluded the expenditure which is not in the nature as described in section

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

depreciation of Rs.9,42,162/-, which will be allowed along with interest and remuneration to partners allowable. The disallowances made by the A.O. u/s 40A(3) and section 40(a)(ia) are hereby deleted and income is estimated at the end of discussion of all other grounds of appeal”. 6. The ld. Sr. D.R. took us through the assessment order

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

depreciation, telephone expenses, salary etc. would be part of the total expenses considered by the ld. Assessing Officer while estimating the income of the assessee out of the total sales, therefore, additionally

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. SUMAN KUMAR, GAYA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.174/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Acit, Central Circle-1, Patna…..…………………...........................……….……Appellant Vs. Suman Kumar……….…………....……...…………………………………....…..Respondent S/O Late Madan Singh, Vill-Baijnathpur, P.O-Wazir Gangj, Distt- Gaya (Bihar)-805131. [Pan: Arxpk3461F]

Income-tax (A)-3, Patna has erred both in law and on fact in deleting the addition of Rs. 44,00,000/- made as unexplained credits without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the two lenders from whom unsecured loans were claimed to have been taken as the assessee

M/S NORTH BIHAR DISTRIBUTOR,PURNEA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

addition made by the AO. Vide ground no.2, the assessee pleaded that non audit of books of accounts as mandated u/s.44AB cannot be the ground of exercising the deeming fiction of presumptive taxation. The ground taken by the assessee is carefully perused. Provisions of section 44 are in the nature of special provisions for assessing the incomes in cases where

M/S NORTH BIHAR DISTRIBUTOR,PURNEA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

addition made by the AO. Vide ground no.2, the assessee pleaded that non audit of books of accounts as mandated u/s.44AB cannot be the ground of exercising the deeming fiction of presumptive taxation. The ground taken by the assessee is carefully perused. Provisions of section 44 are in the nature of special provisions for assessing the incomes in cases where