BIHAR COMBINED ENTRANCE COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION BOARD,PATNA vs. ACIT(EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE), PATNA

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

10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. The claim of exemption has, however, been disallowed on the ground inter alia that the assessee is not wholly and substantially financed by the Government and is also not involved in educational activities. The ld. Assessing Officer also disallowed payments made to printer amounting to Rs.2,85,85,395/- under section

BIHAR COMBINED ENTRANCE COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION BOARD,PATNA vs. ACIT(EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE), PATNA

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

10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. The claim of exemption has, however, been disallowed on the ground inter alia that the assessee is not wholly and substantially financed by the Government and is also not involved in educational activities. The ld. Assessing Officer also disallowed payments made to printer amounting to Rs.2,85,85,395/- under section

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

5. For that the CIT (Appeal) erred in passing ex-parte order confirming disallowance & additions of Rs. 17,452/- i.e. 10% of direct expenses Rs.1,74,520/- of M/s Khan Traders discussed, disallowed and added as per Para D of the order passed by the Ld. assessing officer in passing order based on adhoc, presumption, surmise, inference and ignoring facts

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

5. For that the CIT (Appeal) erred in passing ex-parte order confirming disallowance & additions of Rs. 17,452/- i.e. 10% of direct expenses Rs.1,74,520/- of M/s Khan Traders discussed, disallowed and added as per Para D of the order passed by the Ld. assessing officer in passing order based on adhoc, presumption, surmise, inference and ignoring facts

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

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

10,00,000/- is deleted and the ground is allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.” 5. Thus, the appeal was partly allowed. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. In this case

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)]

10 to Section 43(1) of the Act and not by Section 28(iv) of the Act. I, therefore, delete the addition made by the AO u/s 28(iv) of the Act and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and allow ground no. 1 of the assessee’s appeal. 5. The issue in ground no. 2 relates to the disallowance

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 ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the Ld. assessing officer has erred in disallowing Rs.66,47,34,169/- on the account of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act due to interest income from Fixed Deposit, Saving Account and other income. 11. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points

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

10. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the Ld. assessing officer has erred in disallowing Rs.66,47,34,169/- on the account of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act due to interest income from Fixed Deposit, Saving Account and other income. 11. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points

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 ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the Ld. assessing officer has erred in disallowing Rs.66,47,34,169/- on the account of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act due to interest income from Fixed Deposit, Saving Account and other income. 11. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points

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

10. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the Ld. assessing officer has erred in disallowing Rs.66,47,34,169/- on the account of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act due to interest income from Fixed Deposit, Saving Account and other income. 11. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points

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 ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the Ld. assessing officer has erred in disallowing Rs.66,47,34,169/- on the account of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act due to interest income from Fixed Deposit, Saving Account and other income. 11. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points

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 ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the Ld. assessing officer has erred in disallowing Rs.66,47,34,169/- on the account of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act due to interest income from Fixed Deposit, Saving Account and other income. 11. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points

ITO, WARD-2(1), BEGUSARAI, BEGUSARAI vs. MANISH KUMAR MOTANI, KHAGARIA, BIHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and CO of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajjpm4263D Co No. 02/Pat/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 442/Pat/2024 For A.Y. 2017-18) Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri A.K. Rastogi, S.K. Duta, Ars Revenue By : Shri A.H. Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

disallowance computed at the rate of 10% on Freight & wages expenses, Miscellaneous expenses, travelling and conveyance expenses etc. 6. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the first addition of ₹8,02,45,293/- made by the learned Assessing Officer under Section 40A(3) of the Act in respect

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

5,09,32,05,326/- 10% of Rs. 12,73,30,13,316 (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

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

5) For that, in this year assessee has filed form no 10B electronically on 13/04/2022 6) For that, due to unavailability of electronically filed 10B, during assessment process, Ld. A.O. has disallowed every claimed exemption of RS 3,16,98,714 under section 11, 12& 10

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