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

Income Tax (Appeals), Bhagalpur dated 17.09.2018, whereby he upheld the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 on 26.11.2015 making a disallowance on account of depreciation. 2. The assessee in the present case is a partnership firm, which is engaged in the business

MOTOR MACHINERUY TOOLS,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)]

business income of the assessee in terms of Section 28(iv) of the Act. I, therefore, find merit in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the case of the assessee is covered by Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Act and not by Section 28(iv) of the Act. I, therefore, delete the addition

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. AJIT KUMAR, BETTIAH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of expenditure u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is required only when, expenditures are charged to the P&L account, recorded in the books of accounts. In such circumstances, the net profit to determined and offered for taxation under the head INCOME FROM PROFIT & GA1NSS OF BUSINESS

GRAM NIRMAN MANDAL,NAWADA vs. DC/AC EXEMPTION, CIR, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

income of the assessee after disallowing various expenses from the business income and adding income from house property. The total

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

business, the same was disallowed. Further, a sum of ₹71,91,44,620/- claimed under the head 'other income' in the profit

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIR-2, P)ATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

business, the same was disallowed. Further, a sum of ₹71,91,44,620/- claimed under the head 'other income' in the profit

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

business, the same was disallowed. Further, a sum of ₹71,91,44,620/- claimed under the head 'other income' in the profit

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN.LTD.,PATNA vs. CIT (APPEAL), DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

business, the same was disallowed. Further, a sum of ₹71,91,44,620/- claimed under the head 'other income' in the profit

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 2(1) PATNA, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

business, the same was disallowed. Further, a sum of ₹71,91,44,620/- claimed under the head 'other income' in the profit

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, COR-2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

business, the same was disallowed. Further, a sum of ₹71,91,44,620/- claimed under the head 'other income' in the profit

PRASHANT PACKAGING PVT.LTD,PATNA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIR-2, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Income-tax Rules, 1962, it will be clear that the provisions are not intended to restrict business activities. There is no restriction on the assessee in his trading activities.\nSection 40A(3) only empowers the Assessing Officer to disallow

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

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. He submitted that perusal of section 40A(3) would indicate that any assessee incurring expenditure exceeding Rs.20

MAHENDRA PRASAD,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, ITD, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

business. 9. For that disallowance of Rs.62,906/ u/s 80C of the I.T. Act and Rs.72,094/- u/s 24(b) should not have been made as the evidences for claiming deduction are in possession of the appellant. 10. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant may kindly be given one more opportunity to justify

SAMASTIPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, DARBHANGA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. 3.2. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the order of the learned AO. 3.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee is carrying on the banking business

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. RISHAV DUTTA, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 26.12.2019 for AY 2017-18. 2. Grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced as under: “I. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred (i) in deleting the additions made by the A.O. of Rs.79,720/- under

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. M/S PRAKASH CONSTRUCTION, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & Partly Succeeded.

business of civil construction. It filed return of income on 29.08.2014. The case was selected for scrutiny followed by serving of notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Assessment ITA No.137/Pat/19 AY 2013-14 M/s. Prakash Construction Patna Page 2 completed on 19-03-2016 after making various additions/disallowances of expenses, assessing income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

business income of Rs. 4,87,700/- from M/s Kumar Enterprises which was duly shown in the return of income. The AO rejected the books of account on the ground that the assessee has not shown the income in the two concern namely M/S Kumar Travels and M/S Taran Communication and made addition after estimating the income

KUMAR ARUNOSAYA,PATNA vs. A.O., CIRCLE-6, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

business income of Rs. 4,87,700/- from M/s Kumar Enterprises which was duly shown in the return of income. The AO rejected the books of account on the ground that the assessee has not shown the income in the two concern namely M/S Kumar Travels and M/S Taran Communication and made addition after estimating the income