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

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 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

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

2 appended to section 37(1) by Finance Act, 2014 with effect from 1-4-2015 is applicable prospectively from assessment year 2015-16; therefore, corporate social responsibility expenditure incurred by assessee-company on or before 31-3-2014 was to be allowed as deduction under section 37(1)" Copy of judgments is enclosed. 7. That the appellant states that

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

2 appended to section 37(1) by Finance Act, 2014 with effect from 1-4-2015 is applicable prospectively from assessment year 2015-16; therefore, corporate social responsibility expenditure incurred by assessee-company on or before 31-3-2014 was to be allowed as deduction under section 37(1)" Copy of judgments is enclosed. 7. That the appellant states that

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

2 appended to section 37(1) by Finance Act, 2014 with effect from 1-4-2015 is applicable prospectively from assessment year 2015-16; therefore, corporate social responsibility expenditure incurred by assessee-company on or before 31-3-2014 was to be allowed as deduction under section 37(1)" Copy of judgments is enclosed. 7. That the appellant states that

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

2 appended to section 37(1) by Finance Act, 2014 with effect from 1-4-2015 is applicable prospectively from assessment year 2015-16; therefore, corporate social responsibility expenditure incurred by assessee-company on or before 31-3-2014 was to be allowed as deduction under section 37(1)" Copy of judgments is enclosed. 7. That the appellant states that

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

2 appended to section 37(1) by Finance Act, 2014 with effect from 1-4-2015 is applicable prospectively from assessment year 2015-16; therefore, corporate social responsibility expenditure incurred by assessee-company on or before 31-3-2014 was to be allowed as deduction under section 37(1)" Copy of judgments is enclosed. 7. That the appellant states that

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

2 appended to section 37(1) by Finance Act, 2014 with effect from 1-4-2015 is applicable prospectively from assessment year 2015-16; therefore, corporate social responsibility expenditure incurred by assessee-company on or before 31-3-2014 was to be allowed as deduction under section 37(1)" Copy of judgments is enclosed. 7. That the appellant states that

SIS CASH SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

Section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 provides for rectification of mistake apparent from the record. A point which is debatable cannot be termed a mistake. But when the point is covered by a decision of the Supreme Court or concerned High Court, either rendered prior to or subsequent to the order proposed to be rectified, then

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

D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna dated 28.01.2015 passed for A.Y. 2009-10. 1 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 M/s. Kumar Construction 2. Grounds No. 1, 2 & 3 are inter-connected grounds therefore we first take these grounds

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

13. ITA No. 94/Pat/2020 (Revenue) & CO No. 03/Pat/2021(Assessee) for AY 2012-13 The only issue raised by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) quashing the assessment on the ground that no notice u/s 143(2) was served to the assessee before completing assessment proceedings. 14. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

13. ITA No. 94/Pat/2020 (Revenue) & CO No. 03/Pat/2021(Assessee) for AY 2012-13 The only issue raised by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) quashing the assessment on the ground that no notice u/s 143(2) was served to the assessee before completing assessment proceedings. 14. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return

KUMAR ARUNODAYA,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6, PATNA [NEW – DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, PATNA], PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

13. ITA No. 94/Pat/2020 (Revenue) & CO No. 03/Pat/2021(Assessee) for AY 2012-13 The only issue raised by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) quashing the assessment on the ground that no notice u/s 143(2) was served to the assessee before completing assessment proceedings. 14. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return

KUMAR ARUNOSAYA,PATNA vs. A.O., CIRCLE-6, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

13. ITA No. 94/Pat/2020 (Revenue) & CO No. 03/Pat/2021(Assessee) for AY 2012-13 The only issue raised by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) quashing the assessment on the ground that no notice u/s 143(2) was served to the assessee before completing assessment proceedings. 14. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

13. ITA No. 94/Pat/2020 (Revenue) & CO No. 03/Pat/2021(Assessee) for AY 2012-13 The only issue raised by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) quashing the assessment on the ground that no notice u/s 143(2) was served to the assessee before completing assessment proceedings. 14. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return

PRASHANT PACKAGING PVT.LTD,PATNA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIR-2, PATNA, PATNA

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

13,63,240.00 which was subsequently confirmed by the order of Id. CIT(A). Now the issue for our consideration arises so as to whether the disallowance under section 40A(3) is sustainable in the light of the facts & circumstances.\nFrom the perusal of facts of the case we find that admittedly the genuineness of the parties have not been