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

disallowed the claim made under section 80-IA.” 15. Respectfully following the ratios laid down by the Hon’ble Courts referred hereinabove, we are inclined to hold that the notice under section 148

KISHORI CAPITAL MARKETS PVT. LTD.,BBD BAGH (EAST) vs. ITO WARD 2(1), PATNA, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

disallowance of Rs. 2,05,14,580/- has been dismissed but allowed the appeal of the assessee by allowing the credit for pre-assessment taxes paid and accordingly, the appeal has been dismissed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred. 1.1. The ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order on various

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

section 40A(3) are not applicable. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna erred in not Including the Issue In the remand order Issued by him for examination of the undisclosed receipt from business of the assessee. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

148 is arbitrary unjustified, void ab-initio and bad in law. 3. For that the learned CIT(A) has also failed to adjudicate the following grounds:- (i) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no justification for addition of a sum of Rs. 9,43,7351- being hire charges separately. The case of the assessee

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

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

148 is arbitrary unjustified, void ab-initio and bad in law. 3. For that the learned CIT(A) has also failed to adjudicate the following grounds:- (i) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no justification for addition of a sum of Rs. 9,43,7351- being hire charges separately. The case of the assessee

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

148 of the Act after the expiry of 4 years solely on the ground of change of opinion. 9. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer has erred in disallowing Rs.6,06,16,174/- on the account of expenses claimed in the profit and loss account for expenses made on account

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

148 of the Act after the expiry of 4 years solely on the ground of change of opinion. 9. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer has erred in disallowing Rs.6,06,16,174/- on the account of expenses claimed in the profit and loss account for expenses made on account

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

148 of the Act after the expiry of 4 years solely on the ground of change of opinion. 9. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer has erred in disallowing Rs.6,06,16,174/- on the account of expenses claimed in the profit and loss account for expenses made on account

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

148 of the Act after the expiry of 4 years solely on the ground of change of opinion. 9. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer has erred in disallowing Rs.6,06,16,174/- on the account of expenses claimed in the profit and loss account for expenses made on account

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

148 of the Act after the expiry of 4 years solely on the ground of change of opinion. 9. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer has erred in disallowing Rs.6,06,16,174/- on the account of expenses claimed in the profit and loss account for expenses made on account

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

148 of the Act after the expiry of 4 years solely on the ground of change of opinion. 9. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer has erred in disallowing Rs.6,06,16,174/- on the account of expenses claimed in the profit and loss account for expenses made on account

PAVAN KUMAR BHAGAT,SAHARSA vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), SAHARSA, SAHARA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowing and adding Rs.11,65,739 claimed as commission expenses by the appellant, solely on the ground that the said deduction is not allowable in view of violation of provision of section 194G of the Act and section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, without considering the fact that the commission have been paid genuinely and through banking mode

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]

148 (1) of the Act and even the notice was issued u/s 142(1) giving show cause to the assessee as to why the capital gain on sale of property should not be added to the income of the assessee. Considering these facts and circumstances it is apparent from the records before us that no notice has been issued

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]

148 (1) of the Act and even the notice was issued u/s 142(1) giving show cause to the assessee as to why the capital gain on sale of property should not be added to the income of the assessee. Considering these facts and circumstances it is apparent from the records before us that no notice has been issued

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]

148 (1) of the Act and even the notice was issued u/s 142(1) giving show cause to the assessee as to why the capital gain on sale of property should not be added to the income of the assessee. Considering these facts and circumstances it is apparent from the records before us that no notice has been issued

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]

148 (1) of the Act and even the notice was issued u/s 142(1) giving show cause to the assessee as to why the capital gain on sale of property should not be added to the income of the assessee. Considering these facts and circumstances it is apparent from the records before us that no notice has been issued

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]

148 (1) of the Act and even the notice was issued u/s 142(1) giving show cause to the assessee as to why the capital gain on sale of property should not be added to the income of the assessee. Considering these facts and circumstances it is apparent from the records before us that no notice has been issued

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

ZAIMUR RAHMAN,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

148 of the Act, which is barred by limitation as per the provisions of Section 149 of the Act. 9. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer, without giving any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, has erred in holding that the cash deposits aggregating to Rs.62,25,000 in State Bank