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

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 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 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 TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,PATNA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Section 40A(7) of the Act as been reported\nby the tax auditor at ₹98,23,310/- being debited to the Profit and Loss\naccount, whereas the same represented the total amount outstanding\nas per the balance sheet in the said account. The assessee submitted\nthat the actual gratuity paid during the year was ₹39,88,247/-, which

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 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

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

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

section 194C or 194(I). To our mind, the ld. Assessing Officer has not demonstrated the actual defaults committed by the assessee and, therefore, under such circumstances, he cannot disallow under a general narration. We allow this ground of appeal and delete the disallowance. 14

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

disallowing Rs. 5,14,090/- 10% of total development expenses taken by the appellant in calculation of capital gain. 7. For that the CIT (Appeal) grossly erred in passing ex-parte order confirming levy and demand of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C levied and demanded in the order passed by the Ld. assessing officer is unjustified and illegal

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

disallowing Rs. 5,14,090/- 10% of total development expenses taken by the appellant in calculation of capital gain. 7. For that the CIT (Appeal) grossly erred in passing ex-parte order confirming levy and demand of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C levied and demanded in the order passed by the Ld. assessing officer is unjustified and illegal

M/S KUMAR CONSTRUCTION,CHAPRA vs. I.T.O., WARD-CHAPRA, CHAPRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Kumar Construction Ito, Ward-Chapra P.O. Dumri Adda, P.S. Vs. Doriganj, Dist. Chapra. Pan: Aajfm 7295 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Smt. Archana Sharma, Ca Respondent By : Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Preferred By The Assessee For The A.Y. 2008-09 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Passed By Osd, Cit(A) Dated 27.06.2014. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Revised Ground Of Appeal For A.Y. 2008-09 As Under: “I. An Expenses Of 10% Including The Expenses On Purchase Of Material Amounting To Rs. 14,21,032/- Has Been Disallowed & The Same Has Been Added To Assessees Total Income While Computation Of Tax. Ii. Sundry Creditors Amounting To Rs. 69,73,159/- Including Outstanding Labour Charges/Payment & Others Have Been Disallowed & The Same Has Been Added To Assessees Total Income While Computation Of Tax. Iii. Tax Imposed Upon The Assessee Is Very Harsh & Unjustifiable As It Makes The Net Profit Of The Assessee Approximately 31% Of The Revenue Received During The Year & As Such Impugned Order Required To Be Set Aside. So, We Pray For Consider The Revised Grounds Stated Above & Grant Relief For Assessee’S Income @ 6% Of The Total Receipts Of Rs. 2,84,29,497/-.”

14,21,032/-has been disallowed and the same has been added to the total income of the assessee and sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 69,73,159/- in respect of outstanding labour charges/payment and others have been disallowed and the same has been also added to total income of the assessee. Moreover, the ld. CIT(A) also

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

disallowing the deduction to certain extent of Rs. 3.65 crores from the total claim made under section 80-IA of Rs. 23.37 crores. The order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) and same was allowed by deleting the addition of Rs. 3.65 crores. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has issued impugned notice. [Para 14

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. SONAMOTI AGROTECH PVT LTD, PATNA

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

14. Hon'ble Court has specifically observed for the purpose of section 153A that only seized material is required. However, if there is any other incriminating material belong to the assessee found at the premises of the some other person, then the assessment has to be made under other provisions and not under section 153A