PUSHPA KUMARI,MUZAFFARPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No.08/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Pushpa Kumari ………. Appellant Pawapuri Bihar, N.H. 28, Bhagwanpur, Muzaffarpur, Bihar-842001. (Pan: Abgpk2480B)

disallowed the bank interest of Rs.1,73,077/-. Ld. AO also observed that assessee claimed depreciation @ 40% on the buses

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

disallowance of car depreciation, telephone expenses, salary etc. would be part of the total expenses considered by the ld. Assessing

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)

depreciation. The only ground for such disallowance inter-alia was that such claim was made for the first time in appeal

GREENREV VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

depreciation amounting to Rs.22,03,016/- was disallowed at the time of ITR processing. You have further informed that you had earlier

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)

disallowance of Rs. 1,49,100/- on account of depreciation on 2W the Millennium Building. On going through the assessment

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)

disallowing a sum of 61,27,941 on account of depreciation merely on the ground that the appellant had computed

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

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

S.RANJAN & BROTHERS,MUZAFFARPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Ranjan & Brothers Dcit, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur Puja Bazar, Motijheel, Muzaffarpur- Vs 842001. Pan: Aaofs 8056 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.08.2021 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

disallowance u/s 40A(3) cannot be made. Moreover, the alleged payments for the materials purchased were capitalize and depreciation was claimed

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

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

DCIT vs. SRI VIMLESH PD. SINGH,

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed while the Cross

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 92/Pat./2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs Sri Vimlesh Pd. Singh, Income-Tax, Circle-4, 302, Awadh Kunj Apartment, Kachhi Patna Talab, Gardanibagh, Patna-800001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacfb4796L Co No. 01/Pat./2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Sri Vimlesh Pd. Singh, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of 302, Awadh Kunj Apartment, Kachhi Income-Tax, Circle-4, Talab, Gardanibagh, Patna-800001 Patna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacfb4796L Assessee By : Sh. K. N. Prasad, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Abhay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 16 .03.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: The Appeal By The Department & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Dated 24.06.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Patna.

disallowances of Rs.43,93,368/- being 15% out of total overhead expenses of Rs.2,92,89,122/-. 3.2 That it is pertinent to mention here that the total overhead expenses of Rs.2,92,89,122/- inter-alia includes the following: (a) Opening Work in progress 8,56,930/- (b) BST Deduction 5,76,242/- (c) Miscellaneous Deduction 17023/- (d) Depreciation

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

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

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

disallowances as made are fit to be deleted. (iv) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer is not justified in charging interest u/s 234A at Rs. 69,5861-, 234B at Rs. 29,94~/-, 234D at Rs. 3,02,3631- and 244A at Rs. 1,84,080/-. The charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B

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

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

disallowances as made are fit to be deleted. (iv) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer is not justified in charging interest u/s 234A at Rs. 69,5861-, 234B at Rs. 29,94~/-, 234D at Rs. 3,02,3631- and 244A at Rs. 1,84,080/-. The charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B

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]

depreciation of earlier years should have been allowed to be set off against the income in view of section 32(2) of the Income Act, 1961. 14. For that the profit & loss account of the appellant reflects credit of Rs. 3,79,54,752/- on account of provisions written back and this has resulted the net profit

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

disallowing the interest payable to NCDC of Rs. 80,80,225 and 63,24,116 u/s 43B of the I.T. Act. 3) For that to decide that NCDC is a Public Financial Institution, the website of NCDC was analysed and on the basis of the activities listed, it has been presumed that it is a Public Financial Institution, whereas

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