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. That the appellant states that the ld assessing officer while passing the impugn order has altogether disallowed the whole deduction claimed under Section 80-IA of the Act, which primarily was in respect of work of construction and maintenance of roads in the State of Bihar. 12. That the appellant states that the ld assessing officer ought to have

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. That the appellant states that the ld assessing officer while passing the impugn order has altogether disallowed the whole deduction claimed under Section 80-IA of the Act, which primarily was in respect of work of construction and maintenance of roads in the State of Bihar. 12. That the appellant states that the ld assessing officer ought to have

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. That the appellant states that the ld assessing officer while passing the impugn order has altogether disallowed the whole deduction claimed under Section 80-IA of the Act, which primarily was in respect of work of construction and maintenance of roads in the State of Bihar. 12. That the appellant states that the ld assessing officer ought to have

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. That the appellant states that the ld assessing officer while passing the impugn order has altogether disallowed the whole deduction claimed under Section 80-IA of the Act, which primarily was in respect of work of construction and maintenance of roads in the State of Bihar. 12. That the appellant states that the ld assessing officer ought to have

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

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

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.

c) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C, it is noticed by the Assessing Officer that the income of the assessee exceeds

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. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that ld. CIT(Appeals) has rejected the book result and estimated net profit rate at 8% of the gross receipts, which worked out to a profit of Rs.77,68,919/-. The Revenue is aggrieved with this exercise and emphasized that ld. Assessing Officer has made specific disallowances under sections

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

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

C of other details assessee has claimed that it is registered under section 12A/12AA vide registration number 32 dated 4th January 1988 in its ITR. But assessee did not submit copy of certificate of registration after giving several opportunities to justify its claim i.e. Details of project and institution run by assessee, for which it has claimed exemption under section

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

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

11. For that the other grounds, if any, shall be urged at the time of hearing of appeal. II. ITA No. 217/PAT/2025: 1. For that the ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in affirming imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 5,47,559/- 2. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that imposing

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

11. For that the other grounds, if any, shall be urged at the time of hearing of appeal. II. ITA No. 217/PAT/2025: 1. For that the ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in affirming imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 5,47,559/- 2. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that imposing

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

11. For that the other grounds, if any, shall be urged at the time of hearing of appeal. II. ITA No. 217/PAT/2025: 1. For that the ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in affirming imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 5,47,559/- 2. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that imposing

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

1,08,564/- of M/s Khan Brothers discussed, disallowed and added as per Para C of the order passed by the Ld. assessing officer in passing order based on adhoc, presumption, surmise, inference and ignoring facts and circumstances of the case. 5. For that the CIT (Appeal) erred in passing ex-parte order confirming disallowance & additions