THE MUZAFFARPUR CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Mainsh Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

139(3) as well as section 80 would not be applicable to them in the years for which losses have been carried forward. 11. For that the losses have, therefore, been carried forward u/s 72 of the Income Tax Act and should have been to the set off from the current year income. 12. For that the carried forward business

KOSHLESH VARIJ LOCHAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO WARD- 1 (1), MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed”

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

section 139, in the manner specified for furnishing such return of income. We find that coordinate bench in 42 Hertz Software India (P.) Ltd v. ACIT [2022] 139 taxmann.com 448 (Bangalore – Trib.) wherein following its earlier order in the case of Ms. Brinda Rama Krishna v.ITO [2022] 135 taxmann.com 358 (Bang – Trib) it was held that “one of the requirements

JCIT(IN-SITU), CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. TECHNOCULTURE BUILDING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes\nand Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

disallowance of the deduction, even if the payment was made before the due date\nfor filing the ROI. We need to remind ourselves that this is exactly the case in the present\nappeal. The judgment reinforced the distinction between employer and employee\ncontributions. While an employer's contributions could be governed by section 43B of the\nAct, employees' contributions

PREM KUMAR GOUTAM,LAKHISARAI vs. ITO WARD- 2 (5), LAKHISARAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

139(4) on 29.03.2018 under section 44AD of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has disclosed gross receipts of Rs.49,45,000/- and offered an income @ 8% amounting to Rs.3,95,600/-. He claimed deduction under section 80C of Rs.25,120/- and shown total income at Rs.3,70,480/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment

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]

139(9) of the Act and 292B of the Act, the AO has treated the return of income as invalid which is wrong ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya and in defense, he relied on certain decisions namely PCIT Vs Silver Line 363 ITR 465 (Delhi) and Sapthagiri

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]

139(9) of the Act and 292B of the Act, the AO has treated the return of income as invalid which is wrong ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya and in defense, he relied on certain decisions namely PCIT Vs Silver Line 363 ITR 465 (Delhi) and Sapthagiri

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]

139(9) of the Act and 292B of the Act, the AO has treated the return of income as invalid which is wrong ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya and in defense, he relied on certain decisions namely PCIT Vs Silver Line 363 ITR 465 (Delhi) and Sapthagiri

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]

139(9) of the Act and 292B of the Act, the AO has treated the return of income as invalid which is wrong ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya and in defense, he relied on certain decisions namely PCIT Vs Silver Line 363 ITR 465 (Delhi) and Sapthagiri

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]

139(9) of the Act and 292B of the Act, the AO has treated the return of income as invalid which is wrong ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya and in defense, he relied on certain decisions namely PCIT Vs Silver Line 363 ITR 465 (Delhi) and Sapthagiri

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

section 801A could not be audited as the assessee failed to claim the same while filing return u/s 139. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna failed to appreciate the fact that the auditor in his audit report did not confirmed eligibility of deduction u/s 80IA

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

section 801A could not be audited as the assessee failed to claim the same while filing return u/s 139. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna failed to appreciate the fact that the auditor in his audit report did not confirmed eligibility of deduction u/s 80IA

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

section 801A could not be audited as the assessee failed to claim the same while filing return u/s 139. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna failed to appreciate the fact that the auditor in his audit report did not confirmed eligibility of deduction u/s 80IA

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

section 801A could not be audited as the assessee failed to claim the same while filing return u/s 139. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna failed to appreciate the fact that the auditor in his audit report did not confirmed eligibility of deduction u/s 80IA

MAHARAJADHIRAJA KAMESHWAR SINGH CHARITABLE TRUST,DARBHANGA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) In Protest Against The Action Of The Ld. Ao, Cpc, Bengaluru. The Ld. Ao, Cpc Has Denied Exemption U/S 11 Of The Act Since Apparently The Return Was Filed Belatedly U/S 139(4) Of The Act. Before The Ld. Cit(A), It Is Recorded In Para 6.2 That Two Opportunities Given For Presenting The Facts

section 139(4) may kindly be considered and exemption should not have been denied if the same is not filed within the due date u/s 139(1). 7 For that the appellant trust is eligible for exemption and the disallowance

UDAY SHANKAR ARUN,GAYA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

139(1) of the Act was filed on 10/05/2014 and 09/03/2017 and no notice under section 143(2) of the Act, was issued for selecting the case of the assessee for scrutiny and as on the date of search assessment proceedings were not pending and, therefore, AY 2013-14 and 2015-16, are non-abated and completed assessments. Further

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

139(1) of the Act was filed on 10/05/2014 and 09/03/2017 and no notice under section 143(2) of the Act, was issued for selecting the case of the assessee for scrutiny and as on the date of search assessment proceedings were not pending and, therefore, AY 2013-14 and 2015-16, are non-abated and completed assessments. Further

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

139(1) of the Act was filed on 10/05/2014 and 09/03/2017 and no notice under section 143(2) of the Act, was issued for selecting the case of the assessee for scrutiny and as on the date of search assessment proceedings were not pending and, therefore, AY 2013-14 and 2015-16, are non-abated and completed assessments. Further

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

139(1) of the Act was filed on 10/05/2014 and 09/03/2017 and no notice under section 143(2) of the Act, was issued for selecting the case of the assessee for scrutiny and as on the date of search assessment proceedings were not pending and, therefore, AY 2013-14 and 2015-16, are non-abated and completed assessments. Further