JCIT(IN-SITU), CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. TECHNOCULTURE BUILDING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes\nand Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

1) of the Income tax Act, 1961\ndated 02 11 2021\n\nii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has\nerred in allowing the ground of appeal related to disallowance of Rs 6,23,78,655/-\nto closing stock and deleted the addition on account of Closing Stock on the basis

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

disallowed income, the entire income should have\nbeen charged to tax. The omission resulted in under assessment of\nincome of Rs. 70.82 crore involving short levy of tax of Rs.24.07 crore.\nIn fact, the ITD itself, in case of another assessee (AY 2014-15), in an\nassessment completed under section 143(3) in December 2016,\ndenied exemption under section 11

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

11. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” II. ITA No. 331/PAT/2024; AY 2013-14: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 25/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060138818(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

11. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” II. ITA No. 331/PAT/2024; AY 2013-14: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 25/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060138818(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

11. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” II. ITA No. 331/PAT/2024; AY 2013-14: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 25/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060138818(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income

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

11. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” II. ITA No. 331/PAT/2024; AY 2013-14: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 25/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060138818(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

11. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” II. ITA No. 331/PAT/2024; AY 2013-14: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 25/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060138818(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income

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

11. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” II. ITA No. 331/PAT/2024; AY 2013-14: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 25/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060138818(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income

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

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

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

1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for his assessment for that purpose. [Para 10] The writ applicant has challenged the reopening proceeding substantially on the grounds that (i) the proceedings initiated is mere a change of opinion on the part of the Assessing Officer as the issue already

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

11,489/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer has issued questionnaires under section 142(1) on 13.06.2011. A perusal of the finding of ld. Assessing Officer on page 2 of the impugned order would reveal that the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

disallowance of unsecured loan, in para 3 of the assessment order the Assessing Officer has discussed that on examination of book of the assessee it is found that an amount of Rs. 1,06,0? 895/- has shown loan received from M/s Trailblazer Edusol Pvt. Ltd. and in absence of any explanation Assessing Officer made addition of the same

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

disallowance of unsecured loan, in para 3 of the assessment order the Assessing Officer has discussed that on examination of book of the assessee it is found that an amount of Rs. 1,06,0? 895/- has shown loan received from M/s Trailblazer Edusol Pvt. Ltd. and in absence of any explanation Assessing Officer made addition of the same

ACIT, PATNA vs. NEW ERA SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT WELFARE SOCIETY, PATNA

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

1). Hence, exemption under section 11 and 12 is also not applicable and the exemption claimed of Rs. 5,80,39,300/-plus other section in ITR is hereby disallowed

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

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of the provisional expenditure as per para 11 of the assessment order at ₹44,70,128/- were made and the total income was assessed at ₹176,92,74,630/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered in detail the provisions of section 36(1