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

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4) The provisions of Chapter XVII-C shall not apply to an eligible assessee in so far as they relate to the eligible business. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section

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

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4) The provisions of Chapter XVII-C shall not apply to an eligible assessee in so far as they relate to the eligible business. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section

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

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4) The provisions of Chapter XVII-C shall not apply to an eligible assessee in so far as they relate to the eligible business. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section

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

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4) The provisions of Chapter XVII-C shall not apply to an eligible assessee in so far as they relate to the eligible business. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section

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

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4) The provisions of Chapter XVII-C shall not apply to an eligible assessee in so far as they relate to the eligible business. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section

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

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4) The provisions of Chapter XVII-C shall not apply to an eligible assessee in so far as they relate to the eligible business. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section

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

section 154 in allowing deduction on account of depreciation allowance separately when the income of the assessee was computed by applying the net profit rate was duly supported by the decision of the 5

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

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

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

5. A perusal of above two reasons recorded shows that the AO has initiated second proceedings u/s 147 during the pendency of first re - assessment proceedings primarily for the same reasons. There is hardly any material difference between the two sets of reason to believe as above. The AO could only have initiated another proceedings under section 147 to assess

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

5,80,39,300/- or u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) or any other section in ITR s the assessee had not filed the Form 10B under section 12A(1)(b). In view of the clear admission on the part of the assessee that it has not filed Form 10B, the assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s.11/12

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

SALAUDDIN vs. DCIT,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.02/Pat/2011 (ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2007-2008) Salauddin, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Chhatradhari Bazar, Muzaffarpur Chapra, Saran स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aasfs 5008 E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

section 44AD applies to the cases where gross receipt is up to Rs.40 lakh, it can be a sound basis for estimation of net profit in the case of present assessee. In the cases of contract receipt above Rs.40 lakh, the benefits of economies of high scale accrues to the contractor and net profit should not be less than

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 Tax Act by disallowing the claim of Rs.19,13,907/- claimed by the assessee and assessed income of the assessee at Rs.23,79,307/-. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals

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

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

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Arun Construction Acit, Circle-1, Bhagalpur / Naya Chak, Ishak Chak, V/S. Mahabri Prasad Lane, Bhagalpur-812001, Bihar Pan No.Aaffa9557K अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri K. N Prasad, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Ajay Kumar, Addl.Cit, Sr. Dr

depreciation relief which had not been considered during the course of assessment. The same stood accepted on 27.04.2015. It was thereafter on 26.11.2015 that the Assessing Officer once again invoked section 154 rectification; suo moto, seeking to assess the royalty income in question.. This factual backdrop makes it abundantly clear that the Assessing Officer has sought to rectify

VIKRAMSHILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LTD,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHAGALPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

5. In the instant case, the matter pertains to calculation of unadjusted depreciation of earlier years at a much later date and that too during the course of giving appeal effect of an entirely different year. No such claim has been made in the AYs to which the stated unabsorbed depreciation pertains. The amount of carried forward loss, either business