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

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

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

9 I.T.A. No. 119/PAT/2011 & C.O. No.1/PAT/2012 International School of Social Welfare & Human Resources: AY: 2006-06 activities which can not be termed as educational activities, such as providing transport facilities and others. From the perusal of the balance sheet, it is also seen that the assessee has given advance to land lord of Rs.16

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

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

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

depreciation and other charges. The total hire charges is not taxable. The addition of Rs. 9,43,735/- on account of hire charges as sustained 1 confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is arbitrary, unjustified, void ab-initio and bad in law. The addition as sustained is fit to be deleted. 3. For that in the facts and circumstances

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

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

depreciation and other charges. The total hire charges is not taxable. The addition of Rs. 9,43,735/- on account of hire charges as sustained 1 confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is arbitrary, unjustified, void ab-initio and bad in law. The addition as sustained is fit to be deleted. 3. For that in the facts and circumstances

THE MUZAFFARPUR CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Mainsh Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

9. For that u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, the whole of the income of a co-operative society engaged in banking business was deductible and no tax was payable till assessment year 2006-07. As the income of the society under the statute was nil, the appellant was not obliged to file return under the provisions

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

9. As regards additional Ground No. 7 relating to carry forward of the loss of ₹ 50,33,596/- and unabsorbed depreciation of ₹ 44,65,970/- which was not raised before the Ld. CIT(A) and requested to be admitted and decided being purely a legal ground as held in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner

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

section 142(1) on 15.12.2020, the ld. Assessing Officer considering the reply of the assessee furnished on 26.12.2020 called for further more information vide letter dated 17.02.2021. In the said notice, the assessee was asked to produce books of account, reply to the various Bank accounts, which were inventorised during the survey proceedings, brief note about the business activity

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

9. The first finding of the ld. Assessing Officer is qua the estimation of gross profit, which we have considered while dealing with Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s grounds of appeal. Applying the same logic on unrecorded purchases, the ld. Assessing Officer has worked out gross profit at Rs.10,56,328/-. The ld. Assessing Officer

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

depreciation as per Companies Act and as per IT Act. Further no evidence or proof has been adduced by the assessee as to why reserve and amortization of grant of Rs.1027353413/- has not been deducted while calculating the deduction as per Income Tax Act. Under the circumstances, the assessee's argument on the above issue is not tenable

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)’].

section 23(3)" That the same view has been expressed by the various court which are as follows:-Action Electricals v. Deputy CIT [2002] 258 ITR 188 (Delhi) and Kamal Kumar Saharia v. CIT [1995] 216 ITR 217 (Gauhati). The A.R has further relied upon the judgment of Hon. ITAT, Patna bench, in the case of assessee itself

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]

depreciation claimed by the assessee for reducing the bills were not supplied and total disallowance of Rs. 2,76,084/- was made and the same was added back to the income of the assessee before set off of losses. Thereafter, the ld. AO further observed that the assessee had claimed an amount of Rs. 3.65 crores towards provision

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

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

depreciation on the acquisition of fixed assets which has been allowed as application of income, Ld. CIT has not given any adverse comment or finding in the impugned order. 4 Radha Govind Public Welfare Society AY 2015-16 4.4. It is also submitted that though Ld. CIT has issued show cause notice u/s. 263 of the Act by raising twelve

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