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 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

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.

10 | 71 Assessment Year : 2010 -2011 under section 147 on the basis of under assessment. The assessee objected to the reopening of assessment. Though the assessment was reopened on the alleged ground of various disallowable claims, but except for the disallowance of a sum claimed in the revised return neither any claim was disallowed nor any addition was made

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

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

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

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