AKSHAY EDUCATIONAL & SOCIAL WELFARE CHARITABLE TRUST,BODHGAYA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, GAYA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.03/Pat/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Akshay Educational & Social Welfare Charitable Trust............……….……Appellant Amawa (Thakar), Bodhgaya-824234. [Pan:Aacta5613R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-3, Gaya….....………............…............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Adv. & Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 11, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.08.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

1. For that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining of Rs.57,25,000/- being the amount of voluntary contribution received from "Association Akshy" Patriarca, San Jose, CA, US. 2. For that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that there was no specific direction by the donor towards utilization of the fund so donated. 3. For that

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

disallowing Rs.30,52,571/- on the account of expenses claimed in the profit and loss account for expenses made on account of corporate social responsibility (in short CSR) in Financial Year 2011-12 corresponding to Assessment Year 2012-13, notwithstanding the fact that the Explanation (2) of sub-Section (1

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

disallowing Rs.30,52,571/- on the account of expenses claimed in the profit and loss account for expenses made on account of corporate social responsibility (in short CSR) in Financial Year 2011-12 corresponding to Assessment Year 2012-13, notwithstanding the fact that the Explanation (2) of sub-Section (1

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

disallowing Rs.30,52,571/- on the account of expenses claimed in the profit and loss account for expenses made on account of corporate social responsibility (in short CSR) in Financial Year 2011-12 corresponding to Assessment Year 2012-13, notwithstanding the fact that the Explanation (2) of sub-Section (1

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

disallowing Rs.30,52,571/- on the account of expenses claimed in the profit and loss account for expenses made on account of corporate social responsibility (in short CSR) in Financial Year 2011-12 corresponding to Assessment Year 2012-13, notwithstanding the fact that the Explanation (2) of sub-Section (1

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

disallowing Rs.30,52,571/- on the account of expenses claimed in the profit and loss account for expenses made on account of corporate social responsibility (in short CSR) in Financial Year 2011-12 corresponding to Assessment Year 2012-13, notwithstanding the fact that the Explanation (2) of sub-Section (1

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

disallowing Rs.30,52,571/- on the account of expenses claimed in the profit and loss account for expenses made on account of corporate social responsibility (in short CSR) in Financial Year 2011-12 corresponding to Assessment Year 2012-13, notwithstanding the fact that the Explanation (2) of sub-Section (1

AGLOWMED LIMITED,PATNA vs. ADIT(CPC), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.3,82,386/-. The issue relating to ground taken by the assessee have come to rest by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services

PATWARI STEELS PVT LTD,PATNA vs. DC/AC, CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of 2 AY: 2018-19 Patwari Steels Pvt. Ltd. Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.4,05,746/-. Since the issue raised in the grounds taken by the assessee has been adjudicated by the recent verdict

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

2) and u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 20.01.2022 and has asked the assessee to furnish the reply to various questions mentioned in the questionnaire attached to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act. The copy of the notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 20.01.2022 is placed at pages no. 1

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

2) and u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 20.01.2022 and has asked the assessee to furnish the reply to various questions mentioned in the questionnaire attached to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act. The copy of the notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 20.01.2022 is placed at pages no. 1

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL , PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

2) and u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 20.01.2022 and has asked the assessee to furnish the reply to various questions mentioned in the questionnaire attached to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act. The copy of the notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 20.01.2022 is placed at pages no. 1

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

2) and u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 20.01.2022 and has asked the assessee to furnish the reply to various questions mentioned in the questionnaire attached to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act. The copy of the notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 20.01.2022 is placed at pages no. 1

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

2) and u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 20.01.2022 and has asked the assessee to furnish the reply to various questions mentioned in the questionnaire attached to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act. The copy of the notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 20.01.2022 is placed at pages no. 1

JCIT(IN-SITU), CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. TECHNOCULTURE BUILDING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes\nand Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

2 of\nthe Ld. AO's order in which it is seen that either no response was given to\nnotice u/s 142(1) of the Act or the SCNs or only part response was given.\nThe Ld. DR took us through the findings of Ld. AO on page 6 at para 4.8\nwhereby it is mentioned that after several opportunities

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

1)(2) reported in [2021] 128 taxmann.com 3 (Gujarat) wherein it was held that where AO issued a reopening notice against assessee on ground that deduction 15 Punrasar Jute Park Limited under section 80-IA(4)(iv) claimed and allowed on generation and sale of steam by assessee was to be disallowed

KISHORI CAPITAL MARKETS PVT. LTD.,BBD BAGH (EAST) vs. ITO WARD 2(1), PATNA, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

1), Patna. The learned AO after going over the documents filed by the assessee in support of the claim made by the assessee do not find satisfactory, as a result of which a sum of Rs. 40,34,780/- is disallowed u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules

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

1, 2 & 3 are inter-connected grounds therefore we first take these grounds of appeal. 3. In these grounds, the Revenue has pleaded that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in rejecting the books of account and estimating the profits, whereas ld. Assessing Officer has specifically made disallowances of Rs.1,44,87,045/- and Rs.1,43,10,424/- under sections

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

disallowance of unsecured loan, in para 3 of the assessment order the Assessing Officer has discussed that on examination of book of the assessee it is found that an amount of Rs. 1,06,0? 895/- has shown loan received from M/s Trailblazer Edusol Pvt. Ltd. and in absence of any explanation Assessing Officer made addition of the same