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

13 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 M/s. Kumar Construction example, Ajay Kumar has withdrawn most of the time, say 4th June, 2008 withdrew Rs.2,80,000/-. This is not payment. This is withdrawal by an employee of the assessee. The payment might be to different persons and may not exceed Rs.20,000/-. Similarly the other disallowance is made under section

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

ARANYA CLEARERS,GAYA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), GAYA

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

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

13,610/-. This disallowance was made by the ld. Assessing Officer with the aid of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income

DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PATNA vs. BIJENDRA MEMORIAL SOCIETY, PATNA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.3/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit (Exemption), Circle-Patna........……….........…..........….…… Appellant Vs. Bijendra Memorial Society….....….....……........…...…...…..…..... Respondent 404 Shyam Centre, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001. [Pan:Aabtb1511G] Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 29, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 28.08.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Additions Of Disallowances Towards The Salary/Remuneration Of Rs. 17,40,000/- & Rs.12,60,000/- Paid To Treasurer & Secretary Of The Trust & Rs.3,00,000/- To Shri Kala Choudhary For Hiring Of Bus & Rs.8,40,000/- For Hostel Building Rent To M/S Aadya Bhasker Enterprises Private Limited From The Income Of Trust Which Were Found Excessive & Unreasonable Under Sub-Section (3) Of Section 13 Of The

section 13(3) of the Act and the amount of salary paid was in excess of what may be reasonably paid for their services, therefore, he disallowed

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 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

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

13. Further we find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ANANTA LANDMARK PVT. LTD. v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND O THERS reported in [2021] 439 ITR 168 (Bom), wherein it was held as under: “It is settled law that where the assessment is sought to be reopened after the expiry of a period

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

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 segregated the claim of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act in respect of construction

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

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 segregated the claim of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act in respect of construction

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

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 segregated the claim of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act in respect of construction

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

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 segregated the claim of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act in respect of construction

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

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 segregated the claim of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act in respect of construction

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

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 segregated the claim of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act in respect of construction

ARUN CONSTRUCTION,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAGALPUR

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

section 145(3) is not applicable. The income estimated in the manner provided u/s 144 of the I. T Act, 1961 @ 8% is arbitrary and unjust. The addition as made is fit to be deleted. (iii) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowances of bonafide and legitimate deduction available to the assessee

ARUN CONSTRUCTION,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAGALPUR

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

section 145(3) is not applicable. The income estimated in the manner provided u/s 144 of the I. T Act, 1961 @ 8% is arbitrary and unjust. The addition as made is fit to be deleted. (iii) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowances of bonafide and legitimate deduction available to the assessee