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

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

2 & 3. I have carefully perused these annexures.\n5.1.2 The appellant has stated that funds received from Government of Bihar in\nkept in bank account and earned thereon, pending utilization. Such interest is\ntreated in the books of accounts as per the direction of State Government.\nHowever, was kept in a separate account called 'Accretion of interest'. However,\nsince

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

143(3)/147 of the Act. 3. For that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not been justified in confirming the profit of Rs.3,73,827/- which is estimated @ 8% of the Gross receipt. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not been justified in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271B of the Act. 5. For that

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

143(3)/147 of the Act. 3. For that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not been justified in confirming the profit of Rs.3,73,827/- which is estimated @ 8% of the Gross receipt. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not been justified in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271B of the Act. 5. For 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

143(3) dated 02.09.2021 passed by the A.O. is cancelled. The assessing officer is directed to pass a fresh assessment order considering all the issues including the issues raised in the cancelled order and as mentioned in this order and re-compute the assessee’s income after making proper enquiries/verification in respect of the issue discussed above, and after giving

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

143(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

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

143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer has issued questionnaires under section 142(1) on 13.06.2011. A perusal of the finding of ld. Assessing Officer on page 2 of the impugned order would reveal that the assessee was not very cooperative with the ld. Assessing Officer for submitting the requisite details. The 2 Assessment

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. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income electronically on 16.09.2016 showing aggregate income of Rs.4,65,400/-. The case was selected under CASS for limited 1 Rohit Kumar Jhunjhunwala scrutiny under section 143(3) of the Act with the reason that whether deduction claimed on account of depreciation

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

2 & 3. I have carefully perused these annexures.\n5.1.2 The appellant has stated that funds received from Government of Bihar are\nkept in bank account and earned thereon, pending utilization. Such interest is\ntreated in the books of accounts as per the direction of State Government.\nHowever, it was kept in a separate account called "cretion of interest\". However, since

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

section (1) after the expiry of two 3 North Bihar Power Distribution Co. Ltd. AY 2017-18 years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed.” 4. Ground 4: The learned PCIT has erred in law, and passed an order u/s 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 by non-considering replies

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

section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that written down value of the assets, namely vehicles were shown at Rs.5,084/- as on 31.03.2015, but on the first day of opening for the next 2 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Arun Kumar Gupta accounting year

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

143(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceeding, assessee furnished audited financial statement along with audit report on Form No. 10CCB in support of his deduction claimed u/s. 80IC of the Act. Assessee also submitted details of meter setting certificate indicating the location and address of industrial undertaking and Small Scale Industries certificate issued

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

143(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceeding, assessee furnished audited financial statement along with audit report on Form No. 10CCB in support of his deduction claimed u/s. 80IC of the Act. Assessee also submitted details of meter setting certificate indicating the location and address of industrial undertaking and Small Scale Industries certificate issued

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)’].

143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. In response to notices, the assessee has appeared time to time before the AO and furnished copy of audit report of business activities, bank statements, books of account, details of sundry creditors and payment certificate and a copy of 26AS statement. On examination of the various documents, 2 M/s. R.P. Rai Estate

S.RANJAN & BROTHERS,MUZAFFARPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Ranjan & Brothers Dcit, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur Puja Bazar, Motijheel, Muzaffarpur- Vs 842001. Pan: Aaofs 8056 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.08.2021 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

143(2) 2 S. Ranjan & Brothers A.Y. 2017-18 and 142(1) of the Act issued to the assessee. In response to the notice, assessee appeared time to time before the AO furnishing various details as asked for. During the assessment proceeding, the ld. AO noticed that the assessee has made payment of Rs. 1,90,000/- in cash

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

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

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