DIVYA CONSTRUCTION,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAGALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

deduction on account of depreciation separately while computing its income by applying the net profit rate, ld. Counsel for the assessee

ADITYA FUTURISTIC TRADING PVT. LTD.,PATNA vs. CIT-I, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Aditya Futuristic Trading Cit-1, Patna Pvt. Ltd. C/O. Nirmal & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Nepali Vs. Kothi, Opp. Gasoline Petrol Pump. Boring Road, Patna – 800001. [Pan: Aaeca 9085 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Maitin, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit/Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit-1, Patna Dated 23.03.2018 U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That The Grounds Hereto Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. Ii. For That The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-1, Patna Is Bad Both In Law & On Facts. Iii. For That The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-1, Patna Is Based On Presumption, Surmise & Conjectures. Iv. For That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-1, Patna Passed The Order Ignoring The Fact That All The Points Which Were Raised In The Notice Had Duly Been Examined By The Ld. Ao.

depreciation chart and to determine the issue of deductibility of the same against the Gross Revenue Receipt (GRP). The failure

DCIT vs. SRI VIMLESH PD. SINGH,

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed while the Cross

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 92/Pat./2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Sri Vimlesh Pd. Singh, Income-Tax, Circle-4, 302, Awadh Kunj Apartment, Kachhi Patna Talab, Gardanibagh, Patna-800001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacfb4796L Co No. 01/Pat./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Sri Vimlesh Pd. Singh, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of 302, Awadh Kunj Apartment, Kachhi Income-Tax, Circle-4, Talab, Gardanibagh, Patna-800001 Patna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacfb4796L Assessee By : Sh. K. N. Prasad, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Abhay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 16 .03.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: The Appeal By The Department & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.06.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Patna.

Deduction 17023/- (d) Depreciation 2104/- 3.3 That it is further pertinent to mention here that the assessee has himself shown

NORTH BIHAR POWER DISTRUBUTION CO. LTD,PATNA vs. PR. CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

depreciation chart as per Income Tax Act was not available in the assessment folder. Therefore the Audit has concluded that the deduction

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

deduction in respect of the depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4) Where an eligible assessee declares profit

ROHIT KUMAR JHUNJHUNWALA,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 73/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Rohit Kumar Jhunjhunwala,……………….…Appellant Keshev Rai Lane Chowk, Patna City-800008, Bihar [Pan:Aaqpj7024F] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….....Respondent Ward-5(1), Patna Appearances By: Shri Alok Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

deduction claimed on account of depreciation is admissible. Subsequently notice under section 143(2) was generated and served on the assesese

NEHA VERMA,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

deduction in respect of the depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4) The provisions of Chapter XVII-C shall

NEHA VERMA,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

deduction in respect of the depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4) The provisions of Chapter XVII-C shall

NEHA VERMA,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

deduction in respect of the depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4) The provisions of Chapter XVII-C shall

NEHA VERMA,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN

In the result, all the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

deduction in respect of the depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4) The provisions of Chapter XVII-C shall

NEHA VERMA ,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

deduction in respect of the depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4) The provisions of Chapter XVII-C shall

NEHA VERMA,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN

In the result, all the appeals of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

deduction in respect of the depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4) The provisions of Chapter XVII-C shall

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

deduction in respect of the depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4) The provisions of Chapter XVII-C shall

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

deduction in respect of the depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4) The provisions of Chapter XVII-C shall

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

deduction, allowance or relief in the return ; (c) where an assessment has been made, but— (i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed ; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate ; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. BIHAR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, MUNGER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

depreciation claimed by the assessee for reducing the bills were not supplied and total disallowance of Rs. 2,76,084/- was made and the same was added back to the income of the assessee before set off of losses. Thereafter, the ld. AO further observed that the assessee had claimed an amount of Rs. 3.65 crores towards provision

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

deducted for the assessment year under consideration. 8. Reason for refund claimed, however advance tax was made on the basis income, reason for deviation with documentary evidences (calculations). Please reconcile your income with 26AS, 3CD and ITR alongwith detailed 8. clarification/justification and supporting evidences. 10. In reply to the notice dated 15.12.2020, the assessee furnished submissions

M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall