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 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 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

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)

6 Dr. Sunita Kumari Assessment Year 2013-14 and Assessment Year 2015-16 are allowed. 8. So far as the remaining assessment years are concerned i.e., AY 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, we notice that for AY 2014-15, the return of income filed by the assessee was defective and being invalid return, the assessee cannot

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)

6 Dr. Sunita Kumari Assessment Year 2013-14 and Assessment Year 2015-16 are allowed. 8. So far as the remaining assessment years are concerned i.e., AY 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, we notice that for AY 2014-15, the return of income filed by the assessee was defective and being invalid return, the assessee cannot

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)

6 Dr. Sunita Kumari Assessment Year 2013-14 and Assessment Year 2015-16 are allowed. 8. So far as the remaining assessment years are concerned i.e., AY 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, we notice that for AY 2014-15, the return of income filed by the assessee was defective and being invalid return, the assessee cannot

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)

6 Dr. Sunita Kumari Assessment Year 2013-14 and Assessment Year 2015-16 are allowed. 8. So far as the remaining assessment years are concerned i.e., AY 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, we notice that for AY 2014-15, the return of income filed by the assessee was defective and being invalid return, the assessee cannot

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)

6 Dr. Sunita Kumari Assessment Year 2013-14 and Assessment Year 2015-16 are allowed. 8. So far as the remaining assessment years are concerned i.e., AY 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, we notice that for AY 2014-15, the return of income filed by the assessee was defective and being invalid return, the assessee cannot

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)

6 Dr. Sunita Kumari Assessment Year 2013-14 and Assessment Year 2015-16 are allowed. 8. So far as the remaining assessment years are concerned i.e., AY 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, we notice that for AY 2014-15, the return of income filed by the assessee was defective and being invalid return, the assessee cannot

UDAY SHANKAR ARUN,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)

6 Dr. Sunita Kumari Assessment Year 2013-14 and Assessment Year 2015-16 are allowed. 8. So far as the remaining assessment years are concerned i.e., AY 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, we notice that for AY 2014-15, the return of income filed by the assessee was defective and being invalid return, the assessee cannot

UDAY SHANKAR ARUN,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)

6 Dr. Sunita Kumari Assessment Year 2013-14 and Assessment Year 2015-16 are allowed. 8. So far as the remaining assessment years are concerned i.e., AY 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, we notice that for AY 2014-15, the return of income filed by the assessee was defective and being invalid return, the assessee cannot

UDAY SHANKAR ARUN,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)

6 Dr. Sunita Kumari Assessment Year 2013-14 and Assessment Year 2015-16 are allowed. 8. So far as the remaining assessment years are concerned i.e., AY 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, we notice that for AY 2014-15, the return of income filed by the assessee was defective and being invalid return, the assessee cannot

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)

6 Dr. Sunita Kumari Assessment Year 2013-14 and Assessment Year 2015-16 are allowed. 8. So far as the remaining assessment years are concerned i.e., AY 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, we notice that for AY 2014-15, the return of income filed by the assessee was defective and being invalid return, the assessee cannot

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

6. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deciding the appeal without giving proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 7. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in disallowing Rs. 1,40,675/- u/s 40a(ia) for non deduction of tax on expenses under the head advertisement and publicity. 8. 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

6. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deciding the appeal without giving proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant. 7. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in disallowing Rs. 1,40,675/- u/s 40a(ia) for non deduction of tax on expenses under the head advertisement and publicity. 8. For that

DIVYA PRAKASH,BHOJPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. Under the facts and circumstances, his total income Is assessed u/s 143(3) of the. Income Tax Act at total income of Rs.7,47,137/-. Allowed deduction u/s 80C of Rs.21000/- of the Act. Issue demand notice and challan accordingly”. 4. The ld. Principal Commissioner perused the assessment record

M/S BIHAR STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN. LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 3. The Appellant prays that the addition of Rs. 5.00 Crore (Rs. Five Crore Only) made in respect of Provision for Storage Loss be deleted." 4. That the whole order passed by the CIT(A) is bad in the facts of law.” 4. Brief facts

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. SONAMOTI AGROTECH PVT LTD, PATNA

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

vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not 16 Assessment Year