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 the\n\nPage 6\n\nITA No.: 428/PAT/2025\n Assessment Year: 2018-19\n\nShashi Krishna Educational Avam Welfare Society.\n\nexemption u/s 11 as claimed in return. This authority has no jurisdiction to\ncondone the delay in filing Form 10B.\n\n5.3 As regard appellant's appeal against taxing the entire receipts instead of\ntaxing the income over

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

disallowances made by the A.O. u/s 40A(3) and section 40(a)(ia) are hereby deleted and income is estimated at the end of discussion of all other grounds of appeal”. 6. The ld. Sr. D.R. took us through the assessment order. He submitted that perusal of section 40A(3) would indicate that any assessee incurring expenditure exceeding Rs.20

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

6. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. In this case, a survey was carried out and subsequent to the survey, income of ₹11,85,340/- was declared in the return of income filed in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') estimated

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

6) of the Act to both the loan creditor companies to which sufficient compliance was made along with the documents asked for by the ld. Assessing Officer. In nutshell, genuineness of the unsecured loan received by the assessee during the relevant financial year stood examined by the ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment proceeding

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

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

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

6) For that, due to unavailability of electronically filed 10B, during assessment process, Ld. A.O. has disallowed every claimed exemption of RS 3,16,98,714 under section 11

PUNAM HISARIA,SITAMARHI vs. DC/AC, CIRCLE-03, DARBH, DARBH

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.80/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Punam Hisaria ………. Appellant (Pan: Abupa3945R)

disallowed 30 percent of amount of Freight paid to the transporters who have given declaration for non-deduction of TDS in compliance of Section 194C(6) but failed to file statement in Form 26Q as required U/s 194C(7) of the Income Tax act, 1961. 2. Ground 2. For that CIT(A) could not consider the fact that all freight

GURUDWARA BAL LEELA MAINI SANGAT TRUST,PATNA vs. DC/AC, EXEMPTION, PATNA

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

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

disallowing a sum of 61,27,941 on account of depreciation merely on the ground that the appellant had computed income with claim of depreciation in respect of assets which has been claimed as application under the same year or the same is not allowable in terms of Section 11 (6

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

6. Your petitioner craves leave to amend, modify and for alter grounds and for to adduce and rely upon such further evidences and/or documents as may be required at any time before and during the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the return of income of the assessee Trust was filed showing ‘NIL’ income

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

6. In A.Y. 2013-14, the assessee is impugning disallowance of Rs.6,07,335/- paid to nine agents and disallowance of Rs.4,11,726/-. 7. In assessment year 2013-14, the first payment is of Rs.6,07,335/-. It was paid to nine concerns and claimed Assessment Years: 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 Ravi Lochan Singh under the head “commission”. This

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

6. In A.Y. 2013-14, the assessee is impugning disallowance of Rs.6,07,335/- paid to nine agents and disallowance of Rs.4,11,726/-. 7. In assessment year 2013-14, the first payment is of Rs.6,07,335/-. It was paid to nine concerns and claimed Assessment Years: 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 Ravi Lochan Singh under the head “commission”. This

ASHOK KUMAR,BHOJPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, ARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

disallowance of Rs.76,191/- @20% out of expenses claimed under various heads. (8) For that the sustenance of addition/disallowances of Rs.7,26,001/-, Rs. 10,56,328/-, Rs.32,71,379/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.76.191/- by the Ld. CIT(A) are wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. (9) For that

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.A. No. 29/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur M/S Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank

disallowed Rs. 6,79,97,094/- which is being deleted and AO has been directed to allow the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of Rs. 10,00,00,000/-.” 11

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

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, the Learned

BIJAY KUMAR SARAF,DALDALI BAZAR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. DC/AC CIRCLE 1,MUZFFARPUR, IT-OFFICE, POLICE LINE, SIKANDERPUR MUZZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 194C(6). All the compliance had been complied ITA No.: 205/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Bijay Kumar Saraf. by the appellant during the year under consideration as per the prevailing law during the said period. 11. For that the learned commissioner of income tax (Appeals) had failed to appreciate the fact that the payment made in respect