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

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, an eligible assessee who claims that his profits and gains from the eligible business are lower than

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

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, an eligible assessee who claims that his profits and gains from the eligible business are lower than

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

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

iii) An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will suffice the requirement of order being erroneous. (iv) If the order is passed without application of mind, such order will fall under the category of erroneous order. (v) Every loss of revenue cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue

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

6 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 M/s. Kumar Construction Appellate Authority has called for a remand report. The ld. 1st Appellate Authority has perused the record carefully and thereafter observed that accounts of the assessee are not reliable from whom true income could be deduced and, therefore, rejected them. The ld. CIT(Appeals) thereafter estimated the profit at 08% of gross

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

6. First we would take up the Revenue’s appeal. The Ground of Appeal in I.T.A. No. 119/PAT/2011 is that the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred both in fact & in law in quashing the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by applying the second proviso of section 147 of the Income

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-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]

iii. Any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 2. The brief facts of the case culled out from the material available on record are as under: The assessee is engaged in the business of banking and filed its return of income declaring at Nil. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and thereafter

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

1. In the captioned case. a proposal for revision (u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act was submitted following the Audit objection made in the case by the Revenue Audit Party 2 The Revenue Audit Party has noted that the depreciation claimed by the assessee as per Income Tax Act was Rs.3430268910/· less than the depreciation claimed as per Companies

M/S KUMAR CONSTRUCTION,CHAPRA vs. DCIT, CICLE-2, MUZAFFAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleita Nos.200/Pat/2014 Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Kumar Construction Dcit, Circle-2, Muzaffarpur P.O. Dumri Adda, P.S. Vs. Doriganj, Dist. Chapra. Pan: Aajfm 7295 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Smt. Archana Sharma, Ca Respondent By : Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Preferred By The Assessee For The A.Y. 2005-06 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Passed By Osd, Cit(A) Dated 26.06.2014. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Revised Ground Of Appeal For A.Y. 2005-06 As Under: “I. The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Assessed Profit @ 8% Of Total Gross Receipts Amount To Rs. 2,40,85,620/- Amounting To Rs. 19,26,850/- & Added Back To Assessee’S Income While Computation Of Tax. Ii. Capital Introduced By 6 Partner’S Amounting To Rs. 12,20,000/- Has Been Outrightly Rejected By Ao & Added Back To Assessees Income While Computation Of Tax. Iii. The Respondent Have Rejected The Books Of Accounts Invoking The Provision Of Section 145(3) & Rejecting The Books Of Accounts Regularly Maintained & Holding That The Audited Books Of Accounts Were Not Absolutely Reliable. So, We Pray For Consider The Revised Grounds Stated Above & Grant Relief For Assessee’S Income @ 6% Of The Total Receipts Of Rs. 2,40,85,620/-.”

depreciation claimed in the profit and loss accounts. However, doing so, he allowed salary and interest to partners amounting to Rs. 3,97,897/- therefrom. Since the assessee firm was reconstituted and seven partners had introduced Rs. 17,86,586/- towards their capital and out of seven partners did not file any documentary proof to explain the source of capital

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

1) was issued in the course of assessment proceeding on all the twelve issues which have been raised by the Ld. CIT in the impugned revisionary proceeding. He also submitted that assessee had duly complied with the requirements of the said notice and also produced books of accounts, bills, vouchers in respect of the activities carried out by 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

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

iii) Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the claim of the assessee regarding the cost of construction of the Rupam Tower building. He also erred in accepting the actual period of construction of the building.” 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in cross- objection:- “1. For that the grounds of cross objection hereto are without prejudice