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

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) : 13 I.T.A. No. 119/PAT/2011 & C.O. No.1/PAT/2012 International School of Social Welfare & Human Resources: AY: 2006-06 Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section

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

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

2. Before us, right at the outset, the Ld. DR pointed out the provisions of section 13(10) of the Act and used that to support the action of Ld. AO. The Ld. AR on the other hand stated that the Form 10B could not be filed due to ignorance of Rules and procedures and the same was prepared

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

13. There is no income from other sources. Sir, you will not find any evidence which shows that I have got other sources of income.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Ld. AO received information that the assessee had deposited cash within the financial year 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14 in a savings bank account

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

2. Sri Janak Kumar Singh 43,30,000/- 3. Sri Baramdev Yadav 28,60,400/- 4. Sri Ashok Yadav 32,56,424/- 5. Sri Manish Kumar 1,00,000/- ___________________ Total: 1,43,10,424/- ___________________ 13. It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee has not shown this expense separately, in its audit report. Had the books

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

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 inventorised during the survey proceedings, brief note about the business activity

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

2) was generated and served on the assesese’s e-mail on 26.07.2017 to start e-proceeding. A notice under section 142(1) was generated and served on the assessee on 22.05.2018 requesting him to furnish the calculation of depreciation along with details of capital assets, date of acquisition with supporting documents. No compliance was made by the assessee

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

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]

13. For that in any view, depreciation of earlier years should have been allowed to be set off against the income in view of section 32(2

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

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

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

depreciation is calculated on the reduced value of fixed assets. The AO however noted that no corroborative documentary evidence was filed in respect of the above contention. Therefore, the interest amount on grant partakes the nature of revenue receipt and is to be accounted accordingly. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 28,78,62,239/- was made. 6.4. We therefore find

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 assessee are dismissed

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

depreciation is calculated on the reduced value of fixed assets. The AO however noted that no corroborative documentary evidence was filed in respect of the above contention. Therefore, the interest amount on grant partakes the nature of revenue receipt and is to be accounted accordingly. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 28,78,62,239/- was made.* - 6.4. We therefore find

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

depreciation of Rs. 44,65,970/- which should have been allowed against the income determined. 8) For that other grounds, if any, will be urged at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an AOP and had filed its return of income on 20.02.2022 showing total loss

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

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

2. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the grounds raised before him that the Assessing Officer is not justified in adding a sum of Rs. 5,37,445/- separately. The learned CIT(A) has not considered the case of the appellant in proper perspective. Bonafide and legitimate submission

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

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

2. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the grounds raised before him that the Assessing Officer is not justified in adding a sum of Rs. 5,37,445/- separately. The learned CIT(A) has not considered the case of the appellant in proper perspective. Bonafide and legitimate submission