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

10,424/- under sections 40A(3) and 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting both these additions by holding that books of account of the assessee are not reliable, therefore, instead of making specific disallowance under these sections, the profit of the assessee deserves to be estimated. 4. Brief facts

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

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

13,63,240.00 which was subsequently confirmed by the order of Id. CIT(A). Now the issue for our consideration arises so as to whether the disallowance under section 40A(3) is sustainable in the light of the facts & circumstances.\nFrom the perusal of facts of the case we find that admittedly the genuineness of the parties have not been

SHASHI KRISHNA EDUCATIONAL AVAM WELFARE SOCIETY,PATNA vs. AO, PATNA

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

13 are only applicable for\ndetermining income. These sections do not have provision for\ndeduction of expenditure, but allow entire income as exempt,\nprovided provisions of the relevant sections are followed. Audit\nnoticed in 12 cases in Maharashtra and Karnataka that ITD denied\nexemptions under section 11, but allowed deductions for expenditure\nto the extent of Rs. 322.42 crore involving

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:

section 11, 12 & 13 are applicable even in cases where the institution is not registered u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act. 5. For that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the appellant trust though not having benefit of registration u/s 12A of the Act, it is registered with Ministry of Home Affairs as charitable for seeking

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR vs. M/S UTTAR BIHAR GRAMIN BANK, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.A. No. 29/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur M/S Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank

13,316 (Allowable) Rs. 50,93,20,532/- Claimed u/s 36(1)(viia) Rs. 10,70,70,590/- 7. We have gone through the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and find that the Ld. CIT(A) has called a remand report, and CIT(A) after considering the remand report submitted by the AO, allow the appeal

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

disallowed every claimed exemption of RS 3,16,98,714 under section 11, 12& 10(23B). 7) For that, as per assessment order u/s 143(3) assessed income is Rs 3,16,98,714/-and Gross tax liability is Rs 30,09,194/- 8) For that, delay of filling of 10B, was caused due to the negligence

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

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

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

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

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

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

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

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

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

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

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

13. That the appellant states that the Department has never raised any doubt regarding the activities of the appellant and hence they ought to accept the deduction claimed under Section 80-IA of the Act. 14. That the appellant states that it is also entitled to claim deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act on interest income received from

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

13. That the appellant states that the Department has never raised any doubt regarding the activities of the appellant and hence they ought to accept the deduction claimed under Section 80-IA of the Act. 14. That the appellant states that it is also entitled to claim deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act on interest income received from

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

13. That the appellant states that the Department has never raised any doubt regarding the activities of the appellant and hence they ought to accept the deduction claimed under Section 80-IA of the Act. 14. That the appellant states that it is also entitled to claim deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act on interest income received from

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

13. That the appellant states that the Department has never raised any doubt regarding the activities of the appellant and hence they ought to accept the deduction claimed under Section 80-IA of the Act. 14. That the appellant states that it is also entitled to claim deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act on interest income received from

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

13. That the appellant states that the Department has never raised any doubt regarding the activities of the appellant and hence they ought to accept the deduction claimed under Section 80-IA of the Act. 14. That the appellant states that it is also entitled to claim deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act on interest income received from

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

13. That the appellant states that the Department has never raised any doubt regarding the activities of the appellant and hence they ought to accept the deduction claimed under Section 80-IA of the Act. 14. That the appellant states that it is also entitled to claim deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act on interest income received from

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

10. On the given set of facts, where the alleged unsecured loan/ cash creditors have already been examined by the ld. Assessing Officer in the regular assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act and there is no transaction at all between third party, i.e. M/s. Ruby Tracom Pvt. Limited and assessee-company, the reopening proceedings cannot be held

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

10,592/-. 12. The second issue for consideration is disallowance of expenditure at Rs.2,38,705/-. We observe that the assessee has declared professional income of Rs.21,90,890/-and after claiming the expenditure has shown that income at Rs.8,56,740/-. However, the Id. AO has applied the provisions of section 44ADA of the Act, observing that assessee needs