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

10. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” VI. ITA No. 335/PAT/2024; AY 2018-19: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 24/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060086826(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income

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

10. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” VI. ITA No. 335/PAT/2024; AY 2018-19: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 24/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060086826(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income

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

10. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” VI. ITA No. 335/PAT/2024; AY 2018-19: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 24/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060086826(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income

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

10. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” VI. ITA No. 335/PAT/2024; AY 2018-19: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 24/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060086826(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income

SIS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

46,25,56,430/- . The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 22.09.2019 was issued to the assessee. Subsequently, other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed from Form No. 3CD report, at 20(b) an amount

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

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

10. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deciding the appeal without giving proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 11. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in disallowing Rs.3,20,487/- u/s 40a(ia) for non deduction of tax on expenses under the head advertisement and publicity. 12. For that

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

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

10. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deciding the appeal without giving proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 11. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in disallowing Rs.3,20,487/- u/s 40a(ia) for non deduction of tax on expenses under the head advertisement and publicity. 12. For that

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.

disallowed the said amount on the ground that mere establishing the identity of the creditor or the transaction have been routed through banking channel is not enough to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. On appeal, the CIT(A) called for remand report from the Assessing officer and after considering the same confirmed the addition. However, the Tribunal

ANIL KUMAR,NALANDA vs. ITO, WARD- 2 (3), BIHARSHARIF

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 361/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anil Kumar National Faceless Assessment Centre M/S Raj Trading Company, Nfac, Delhi Harnaut, Nalanda, Patna-803110 Vs Bihar [Pan : Azopc268H] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

46 days. The assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay. Perusal of the same indicates that the assessee did not came to know about the impugned order as he is not well versed with the technology advancement about the notices of hearing given through mails. When the ITA No.361/Pat.2023 Anil Kumar; A.Y. 2014-15 assessee was asked

SUNYNA KUMAR GUPTA,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 90/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sunyna Kumari Gupta, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Prop: M/S Sona Drug Agency, Tax, Circle-4, Road No. 1, Lohanipur, Rajendra Patna Nagar, Patna-800016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpg6521C Assessee By : Sh. K. N. Prasad, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Abhay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement :16 .03.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.02.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Patna.

disallowed the aforesaid amount. The case of the assessee has not been considered in proper perspective. b. That it is pertinent to mention here that the nature of business of assessee is supply of various type of medical device, kit, blood bags to the several government hospitals. The commission and brokerage relates to the purchase of goods through intermediary which

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

46,52,052/-. Case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for which statutory notices were issued and served on the assessee and were duly complied with. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act determining total loss at Rs.807,63,74,159/- after making an addition of Rs.48