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

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4) Where an eligible assessee declares profit for any previous year in accordance with the provisions of this section and he declares profit for any of the five assessment years relevant to the previous year succeeding such previous year not in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1), he shall

ACIT, PATNA vs. NEW ERA SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT WELFARE SOCIETY, PATNA

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

11 and 10(23C)(iad) for the AY 2017-18, though confirmed the denial of exemption under these sections by the AO, without appreciating the positions of law before the insertion of section 13(10) and the relevant proviso of section 10(23C) which are effective only from 01.04.2023.” 2. Before us, right at the outset, the Ld. DR pointed

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

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

11. Now after conducting the first round of inquiry issuing notice under section 142(1) on 15.12.2020, the ld. Assessing Officer considering the reply of the assessee furnished on 26.12.2020 called for further more information vide letter dated 17.02.2021. In the said notice, the assessee was asked to produce books of account, reply to the various Bank accounts, which were

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

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

2) is to be given in the cases where an assessee has filed the return. It is the first opportunity given to the assessee that what he wants to submit in support of his return. In a case when no return is being filed, the ld. Assessing Officer can initiate the investigating machinery by issuance of a questionnaire under section

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

2 The Revenue Audit Party has noted that the depreciation claimed by the assessee as per Income Tax Act was Rs.3430268910/· less than the depreciation claimed as per Companies Act Separate depreciation chart as per Income Tax Act was not available in the assessment folder. Therefore the Audit has concluded that the deduction of reserve and amortization of grant

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)

depreciation will be allowed as per the provision of section 32(1) of IT Act. Hence, the appellant's contention that the addition was arbitrary found incorrect and after considering the facts and merits of the case, I dismissed this ground. Ground No- 3 regarding disallowance of Rs. 2,32,000/- on account of 50% of the rental income

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)

depreciation in respect of assets which has been claimed as application under the same year or the same is not allowable in terms of Section 11 (6) of the Act notwithstanding the fact that the prescription in the said sub Section is limited to the computation of application of income for charitable purposes to the extent stated

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

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 of Rs.2

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

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 of Rs.2

THE MUZAFFARPUR CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Mainsh Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

depreciation of earlier years should have been allowed to be set off against the income in view of section 32(2) of the Income Act, 1961. 14. For that the profit & loss account of the appellant reflects credit of Rs. 3,79,54,752/- on account of provisions written back and this has resulted the net profit

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

2 of the Annual Report according to which 10,567 societies with 239.76 Lakh beneficiary members had been sanctioned credits of ₹ 36,537.42 Crore. There are other details which are not mentioned for the sake of brevity; therefore, by no stretch of imagination can it be stated that NCDC is not a public financial institution and as has been rightly

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

2 & 3. I have carefully perused these annexures. 5.1.2 The appellant has stated that funds received from Government of Bihar are kept in bank and interest earned thereon, pending utilization. Such interest is treated in the books of accounts as per the directions of State Government. Earlier it was kept in a separate account called accretion of interest. However, since

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]

11,905/- could be filed and remaining amount of Rs. 1,62,603/- were not able to filed by the assessee. Similarly, in relation to furniture & fixtures, bills were not produced for an amount of Rs. 17,85,223/-. Accordingly, the ld. AO reduced the depreciation claimed by the assessee for reducing the bills were not supplied and total disallowance

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

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

11-12-2015 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals [hereinafter referred to as ITA No.314 to316/Pat/18 AY 2009-10 Arun Construction Page 2 ‘CIT(A)’], Bhagalpur passed u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the AY 2009-10. 2. Since the issue(s) raised in these appeals are common

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

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

11-12-2015 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals [hereinafter referred to as ITA No.314 to316/Pat/18 AY 2009-10 Arun Construction Page 2 ‘CIT(A)’], Bhagalpur passed u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the AY 2009-10. 2. Since the issue(s) raised in these appeals are common

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)’].

2,07,82,680/- is against declared total income of Rs. 50,15,861/-. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee went into appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was allowed observing as under: “I have considered the facts of the case and also gone through the Assessment Order and submission made

RADHA GOVIND PUBLIC WELFARE SOCIETY,RAMGARH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

2 Radha Govind Public Welfare Society AY 2015-16 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a trust registered u/s. 12AA of the Act vide registration order dated 26.07.2005. Assessee filed its return of income reporting total income as nil. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) vide order dated 03.11.2016 wherein returned income was accepted. Subsequent