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

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

5 of Section 44AD of the Act and since sec 44AD of the Act has direct bearing on the issue raised before us the same is reproduced below: - “44AD. [ Special provision for computing profits and gains of business on presumptive basis. [ Substituted by Act 33 of 2009, Section 20 (w.e.f. 1.4.2011).] (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections

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

5 of Section 44AD of the Act and since sec 44AD of the Act has direct bearing on the issue raised before us the same is reproduced below: - “44AD. [ Special provision for computing profits and gains of business on presumptive basis. [ Substituted by Act 33 of 2009, Section 20 (w.e.f. 1.4.2011).] (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections

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

5 of Section 44AD of the Act and since sec 44AD of the Act has direct bearing on the issue raised before us the same is reproduced below: - “44AD. [ Special provision for computing profits and gains of business on presumptive basis. [ Substituted by Act 33 of 2009, Section 20 (w.e.f. 1.4.2011).] (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections

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

5 of Section 44AD of the Act and since sec 44AD of the Act has direct bearing on the issue raised before us the same is reproduced below: - “44AD. [ Special provision for computing profits and gains of business on presumptive basis. [ Substituted by Act 33 of 2009, Section 20 (w.e.f. 1.4.2011).] (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections

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

5 of Section 44AD of the Act and since sec 44AD of the Act has direct bearing on the issue raised before us the same is reproduced below: - “44AD. [ Special provision for computing profits and gains of business on presumptive basis. [ Substituted by Act 33 of 2009, Section 20 (w.e.f. 1.4.2011).] (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections

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

5 of Section 44AD of the Act and since sec 44AD of the Act has direct bearing on the issue raised before us the same is reproduced below: - “44AD. [ Special provision for computing profits and gains of business on presumptive basis. [ Substituted by Act 33 of 2009, Section 20 (w.e.f. 1.4.2011).] (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections

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

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

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

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

5. deductions/exemptions/rebate claimed, current year/carried forwarded loss set-off/adjusted, advance tax paid, self-assessment tax paid, TDS deducted, total tax paid, refund claimed for the current year under consideration and previous two years. Provide the comparison of sales/turnover, gross profit, net profit, GP 6. ratio, NP ratio for the year under consideration and previous two years. Provide the justification

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

1) of the Act. In absence of furnishing of any information by the assessee regarding admissibility of 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

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

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

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

depreciation is calculated on the reduced value of fixed assets. The\nAO however noted that no corroborative documentary evidence was filed in\nrespect of the above contention. Therefore, the interest amount on grant\npartakes the nature of revenue receipt and is to be accounted accordingly.\nTherefore, the addition of Rs. 28,78,62,239/- was made.\n6.4. We therefore find

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

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

5 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Ashok Kumar bound to make a fair and reasonable estimate of income based on evidence and material on record; he cannot make an addition in an arbitrary manner or on basis of personal vendetta. The Assessing Officer had neither referred to past history of case nor had made any independent enquiry and he had also