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

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

SURENDRA PRASAD BHARVE,SAMASTIPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (4), SAMASTIPUR

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

Bench: The Learned Cit(A). However, On Account Of Repeated Non-Appearance On Seven Consecutive Dates, The Learned Cit(A) Proceeded Ex Parte & Dismissed The Appeal, Thereby Sustaining The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

section 143(3) of the Act determining the total income at ₹60,57,150/– after making certain additions and disallowances

PARAS NATH GUPTA,RAMNA ROAD , GAYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DC/AC CIRCLE-I

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in\nview of the above directions

disallowance\nof the expenses without any reason, is unjustified and unreasonable.\n7. For that the learned A.O. has erred in making addition of Rs.\n1,65,09,996/- on account of additional estimated income, which is\nunjustified and unreasonable and therefore the same may be deleted.\n8. For that the learned A.O. has erred in calculating Net Profit

ITO, WARD-3(3), AURANGABAD vs. M/S SAMRAT FUEL ENTERPRISES, ROHTAS

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.37/Pat/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), ………. Appellant Vs. M/S. Samrat Fuel Enterprises ………… Respondent (Pan: Aarfs0206P) Appearances By: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr Appeared For Appellant Shri Rajesh Mahajan, Ca Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 11.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 14.08.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal)-1, Patna [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 05.12.2017 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Ito, Ward-3(3), Gaya Dated 27.12.2012. I.T.A. No. 01/Pat/2023 A Y: 2013-14, Suman Kr. Singh

disallowed the alleged excess amount of Page 2 of 4 I.T.A. No. 01/Pat/2023 A Y: 2013-14, Suman Kr. Singh remuneration at Rs.3,09,503/-. Finally, with the said action of the Ld AO, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and made reference to the relevant provisions of section 40(b)(v) of the Act which provides that

ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA vs. M/S SUN COMTECH PVT LTD, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

150/- and tax was also paid u/s 115JB of the Act at ₹22,21,835/-. On the basis of the information received from the Investigation Directorate, Kolkata, information was called for from the assessee and after considering the reply received, the assessment was made by assessing the total income at ₹1,11,96,530/- after disallowing