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

disallowing\nthe exemption u/s 11 as claimed in return. This authority has no jurisdiction\nto condone the delay in filing Form 10B.\n\n5.3 As regard appellant's appeal against taxing the entire receipts instead\nof taxing the income over expenditure, it is stated that facts involved in the\nissue is that the appellant had disclosed gross receipts of Rs.1

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

disallowance under these sections, the profit of the assessee deserves to be estimated. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm derives income as a civil contractor. It has filed its return of income on 12.10.2009 showing total income of Rs.36,09,014/- on a total turnover of Rs.9,71,11

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

4. For that the order of assessment dated 21/11/2019 bearing DIN & Order No: NIL passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act for Assessment Year 2014-15 by the ld. assessing officer, viz. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Patna is invalid in view of the fact that there was no DIN mentioned

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

4. For that the order of assessment dated 21/11/2019 bearing DIN & Order No: NIL passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act for Assessment Year 2014-15 by the ld. assessing officer, viz. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Patna is invalid in view of the fact that there was no DIN mentioned

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

4. For that the order of assessment dated 21/11/2019 bearing DIN & Order No: NIL passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act for Assessment Year 2014-15 by the ld. assessing officer, viz. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Patna is invalid in view of the fact that there was no DIN mentioned

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

4. For that the order of assessment dated 21/11/2019 bearing DIN & Order No: NIL passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act for Assessment Year 2014-15 by the ld. assessing officer, viz. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Patna is invalid in view of the fact that there was no DIN mentioned

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

4. For that the order of assessment dated 21/11/2019 bearing DIN & Order No: NIL passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act for Assessment Year 2014-15 by the ld. assessing officer, viz. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Patna is invalid in view of the fact that there was no DIN mentioned

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

4. For that the order of assessment dated 21/11/2019 bearing DIN & Order No: NIL passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act for Assessment Year 2014-15 by the ld. assessing officer, viz. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Patna is invalid in view of the fact that there was no DIN mentioned

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

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

disallowed by the undersigned. After due consideration of facts & circumstances and verification of documents available in this office, the income of the assessee AOP/BOI is computed u/s 144 i.e. Best Judgment Assessment as Rs. 5,80,39,300/-.” 1.2 Aggrieved with this action, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A), who has in principle supported the action

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

11,85,340/- offered by the assessee in the 1TR filed and estimated the out of books profit generated from the out of books transactions noted down in the loose sheets as Rs.8,03,40,195/- passing order of total taxable income of Rs 8,15,25,535/- 4. From the texts of section 40A(3) reproduced

SOCIETY FOR ADVANCEMENT OF VILLAGE ECONOMY,GAYA vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 2(15) of the Act, the Society was not eligible for claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. As the TDS was not deducted on payments to CSP, a sum of ₹71,79,910/- paid to CSP agents was disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, the excess on income over expenditure was considered and the disallowance

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowed the claim of the appellant since the return of the appellant reveals the profession of the appellant as civil contractor. The appellant has declared its profession as civil contractor possibly because there is no better option allowed by the ITR form. Accordingly, such a choice cannot be stated to be evidence. It is only indicative. The work

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, PATNA, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowed the claim of the appellant since the return of the appellant reveals the profession of the appellant as civil contractor. The appellant has declared its profession as civil contractor possibly because there is no better option allowed by the ITR form. Accordingly, such a choice cannot be stated to be evidence. It is only indicative. The work

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 PATNA, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowed the claim of the appellant since the return of the appellant reveals the profession of the appellant as civil contractor. The appellant has declared its profession as civil contractor possibly because there is no better option allowed by the ITR form. Accordingly, such a choice cannot be stated to be evidence. It is only indicative. The work

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,PATNA, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowed the claim of the appellant since the return of the appellant reveals the profession of the appellant as civil contractor. The appellant has declared its profession as civil contractor possibly because there is no better option allowed by the ITR form. Accordingly, such a choice cannot be stated to be evidence. It is only indicative. The work

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

disallowed every claimed exemption of RS 3,16,98,714 under section 11, 12& 10(23B). 7) For that, as per assessment order u/s 143(3) assessed income is Rs 3,16,98,714/-and Gross tax liability is Rs 30,09,194/- 8) For that, delay of filling of 10B, was caused due to the negligence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. SINCON INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

4,98,11,922/- were made\nhave not filed their returns of income. The Learned AO also issued notice\nunder section 133(6) of the Act, but only one party replied. Finally, the\nLearned AO treated the said purchases as unproved and\nunsubstantiated purchases and added the same to the income of the\nassessee.\n2.2. In the appellate proceedings

RAVI LOCHAN SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

4. In assessment year 2012-13- (a) the assessee is impugning disallowance of Rs.3,38,970/-, which was paid as consultancy fees. (b) Disallowance of Rs.2,40,000/-, which was paid to Ravi Lochan Singh HUF. (c) The next amount, which has been disallowed by the ld. Assessing Officer, is of Rs.7,31,140/-. This amount has been disallowed

RAVI LOCHAN SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-5(1), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

4. In assessment year 2012-13- (a) the assessee is impugning disallowance of Rs.3,38,970/-, which was paid as consultancy fees. (b) Disallowance of Rs.2,40,000/-, which was paid to Ravi Lochan Singh HUF. (c) The next amount, which has been disallowed by the ld. Assessing Officer, is of Rs.7,31,140/-. This amount has been disallowed