MOTOR MACHINERUY TOOLS,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)]

depreciation at the rate of 15%. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that the amount of incentive in question, thus, was utilised for the purchase of van and the same was reduced from the cost of acquisition of van as per Explanation 10 to Section

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

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4) The provisions of Chapter XVII-C shall not apply to an eligible assessee in so far as they relate to the eligible business. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, an eligible assessee who claims that his profits and gains from the eligible business are lower than

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

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4) The provisions of Chapter XVII-C shall not apply to an eligible assessee in so far as they relate to the eligible business. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, an eligible assessee who claims that his profits and gains from the eligible business are lower than

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

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4) The provisions of Chapter XVII-C shall not apply to an eligible assessee in so far as they relate to the eligible business. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, an eligible assessee who claims that his profits and gains from the eligible business are lower than

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

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4) The provisions of Chapter XVII-C shall not apply to an eligible assessee in so far as they relate to the eligible business. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, an eligible assessee who claims that his profits and gains from the eligible business are lower than

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

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4) The provisions of Chapter XVII-C shall not apply to an eligible assessee in so far as they relate to the eligible business. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, an eligible assessee who claims that his profits and gains from the eligible business are lower than

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

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4) The provisions of Chapter XVII-C shall not apply to an eligible assessee in so far as they relate to the eligible business. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, an eligible assessee who claims that his profits and gains from the eligible business are lower than

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 to be allowed under sections 30 and 32. The Assessing Officer determined the taxable income making additions and disallowances. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 and reopened the assessment P a g e 10

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

10 I.T.A. No. 119/PAT/2011 & C.O. No.1/PAT/2012 International School of Social Welfare & Human Resources: AY: 2006-06 4. The assessee-Society has debited Rs. 2,27,550 as 'Road Tax' (on vehicles). However, during the course of scrutiny proceedings of the Society for the AY. 2006-07, it was found that some of the vehicles were not owned' by the Society

PUNRASAR JUTE PARK LIMITED,PURNEA vs. CIT, PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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

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

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:

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

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

section 43B. 6) For that the 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 determined. 8) For that other grounds

SALAUDDIN vs. DCIT,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.02/Pat/2011 (ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2007-2008) Salauddin, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Chhatradhari Bazar, Muzaffarpur Chapra, Saran स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aasfs 5008 E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

depreciation out of estimated income. 3. Now, the appeal was listed today i.e. on 16.09.2019 and the same was heard and disposed off on the only issue as raised in ground Nos. 8 to 10. 4. Brief facts to the above grounds are that the Assessing Officer on perusal of the Audited Accounts filed by the assessee, found that

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

10. In Ground No.5, the assessee has pleaded that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs.32,71,379/-. 11. The ld. Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings found that the assessee had made payments to carriage outwards and commission paid to Hawkers and it has not deducted TDS on such payments. Therefore, those expenses

RAVI LOCHAN SINGH,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

10 days of hearing beginning from 02.11.2022 to the last one being on 01.01.2025. It is seen that either adjournments have been taken by the Ld. AR or none have attended on certain other dates. In fact, on the last date of hearing also none attended and it is considered appropriate that this old pending matter may be disposed

VIKRAMSHILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LTD,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHAGALPUR

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

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

section redundant which cannot be the intention of the legislature. In view of the above, the ground of appeal of the appellant for allowing set off of unabsorbed depreciation not claimed earlier is dismissed. 4.6 As for the claim of the appellant that brought forward losses of AY 2013-14 has not been set off, it is seen that

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

10. In reply to the notice dated 15.12.2020, the assessee furnished submissions on 26.12.2020 and the contents of the same are extracted below:- 20 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sriram Enterprises 21 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sriram Enterprises 22 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sriram Enterprises 23 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sriram Enterprises 11. Now after conducting the first round of inquiry

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