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

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

15 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sriram Enterprises by itself lead to the conclusion that the order of the AO called for interference and revision. In the instant case, for example, the CIT has observed in the order passed by him that the assessee has not filed certain documents on the record at the time of assessment. Assuming

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

15- 16 to A.Y. 19-20, the facts are identical so much so that net profit rate offered is higher than the net profit rate prescribed u/s 44AD of the Act and that the assessee has duly fulfilled the conditions of Section 44AD of the Act and therefore, is not required to maintain any books of account

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

15- 16 to A.Y. 19-20, the facts are identical so much so that net profit rate offered is higher than the net profit rate prescribed u/s 44AD of the Act and that the assessee has duly fulfilled the conditions of Section 44AD of the Act and therefore, is not required to maintain any books of account

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

15- 16 to A.Y. 19-20, the facts are identical so much so that net profit rate offered is higher than the net profit rate prescribed u/s 44AD of the Act and that the assessee has duly fulfilled the conditions of Section 44AD of the Act and therefore, is not required to maintain any books of account

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

15- 16 to A.Y. 19-20, the facts are identical so much so that net profit rate offered is higher than the net profit rate prescribed u/s 44AD of the Act and that the assessee has duly fulfilled the conditions of Section 44AD of the Act and therefore, is not required to maintain any books of account

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

15- 16 to A.Y. 19-20, the facts are identical so much so that net profit rate offered is higher than the net profit rate prescribed u/s 44AD of the Act and that the assessee has duly fulfilled the conditions of Section 44AD of the Act and therefore, is not required to maintain any books of account

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

15- 16 to A.Y. 19-20, the facts are identical so much so that net profit rate offered is higher than the net profit rate prescribed u/s 44AD of the Act and that the assessee has duly fulfilled the conditions of Section 44AD of the Act and therefore, is not required to maintain any books of account

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

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. SH. SURESH , PATNA

2. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) is fully justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,39,15,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged sale proceeds of Residential Units by resorting the provisions of section 28(iv) of the I. T. Act, 1961. The learned

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

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 4A of the Companies Act, 1956. Thus, the assessee was required to deposit the interest due on the loans availed within the due date and that having not being done and the same appearing in the audit report in Form No. 3CD, the prima facie adjustment was rightly made which has been rightly confirmed by the Ld. Addl/JCIT

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:

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of flavours and perfumes. The AO noted from the balance sheet that assessee has shown building worth Rs.1.85 crore in his balance sheet, on which repair and, maintenance expenses has been claimed at Rs.77.73 lac. In view of the huge magnitude

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