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

144, no further expenses/deemed expenses would be allowable" From the above remarks made in the assessment order, it becomes evident that income from contract works was estimated at 6% and that no further expenses would be allowable. Therefore, vide the order passed u/s.154 of the Act, the AO should not have allowed the notional expenditure of depreciation from the estimated

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 | 71 Assessment Year : 2010 -2011 under section 147 on the basis of under assessment. The assessee objected to the reopening

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

depreciation, ld. Assessing Officer left no other option, but to complete the time barring scrutiny assessment under section 144 of the Income

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

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

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

section 145(3) is not applicable. The income estimated in the manner provided u/s 144 of the I. T Act, 1961 @ 8% is arbitrary and unjust. The addition as made is fit to be deleted. (iii) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowances of bonafide and legitimate deduction available to the assessee

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

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

section 145(3) is not applicable. The income estimated in the manner provided u/s 144 of the I. T Act, 1961 @ 8% is arbitrary and unjust. The addition as made is fit to be deleted. (iii) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowances of bonafide and legitimate deduction available to the assessee

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

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

144 of the Act which was also not replied to by the assessee. The AO completed the assessment vide an order u/s.144 of the Act dated: 03.12.2019 denying exemption claimed u/s. 11 and 12 claimed of Rs. 5,80,39,300/- or u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) or any other section in ITR s the assessee had not filed the Form

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

144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act. Subsequently Appeal was filled and appeal was also rejected on the ground that documents and reply not submitted. Later, after so many request on 21.05.2024 the appellant had able to collect the ledger and Form 27D from BIHAR STATE BEVERAGE CORPORATION LIMITED for the Financial Year 2012-13 and attaching

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]

144 of the Act vide order dated 30.03.2015. During the assessment proceeding, the AO introduced that the assessee had claimed 2 AY: 2012-13 Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank purchase of computers worth Rs. 1,37,74,508/- but bills for an amount of Rs. 1,36,11,905/- could be filed and remaining amount of Rs. 1,62,603/- were