PATWARI STEELS PVT LTD,PATNA vs. DC/AC, CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of 2 AY: 2018-19 Patwari Steels Pvt. Ltd. Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.4,05,746/-. Since the issue raised in the grounds taken by the assessee has been adjudicated by the recent verdict

AGLOWMED LIMITED,PATNA vs. ADIT(CPC), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.3,82,386/-. The issue relating to ground taken by the assessee have come to rest by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services

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

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

iv), read with section 36(1)(va) only when the employer deposits the contributions in the employees' accounts on or before the due date prescribed under the Employees Provident Fund /Employees State Insurance Act. In this case, admittedly, the contributions were deposited in the employees' accounts beyond the due date. The circumstance that the assessment order was made under section

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

24-July-2025 ORDER PER BENCH: These six appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024 AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited (BSRDCL). [hereinafter referred

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

24-July-2025 ORDER PER BENCH: These six appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024 AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited (BSRDCL). [hereinafter referred

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

24-July-2025 ORDER PER BENCH: These six appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024 AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited (BSRDCL). [hereinafter referred

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

24-July-2025 ORDER PER BENCH: These six appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024 AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited (BSRDCL). [hereinafter referred

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

24-July-2025 ORDER PER BENCH: These six appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024 AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited (BSRDCL). [hereinafter referred

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

24-July-2025 ORDER PER BENCH: These six appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024 AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited (BSRDCL). [hereinafter referred

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

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

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

24-06-2008 PNB-9926 797757 94,000/- Kamdhenu 13-08-2008 PNB-9926 797760 4,00,000/- 3 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 M/s. Kumar Construction Kamdhenu 18-08-2008 PNB-9926 797762 3,00,000/- M.K Singh 05-06-2008 SBI-347 735721 4,88,000/- M.K Singh 03-07-2008 SBI-347 735726 2,44,500/- M.K Singh

SONA GOLD AGROCHEM PVT LTD,PATNA vs. ADCIR, CPC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

iv) and to hold that “what essentially follows is the adjustments under section 143(1)(a) in respect of "disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return" is to be read as, for example, subject to the rider "except in a situation in which the audit report

DCIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, PATNA vs. M/S DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

iv) Pharmacy receipts – Rs. 35,09,829.00 (v) Other receipts – Rs. 12,24,776.25 Furthermore, the Ld. AO found that the receipts from pharmacy exceeded the tolerance limit of 20% as per the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. It is seen that there is also a supporting finding that considerable expenses have been claimed under the following

DCIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, PATNA vs. M/S DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

iv) Pharmacy receipts – Rs. 35,09,829.00 (v) Other receipts – Rs. 12,24,776.25 Furthermore, the Ld. AO found that the receipts from pharmacy exceeded the tolerance limit of 20% as per the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. It is seen that there is also a supporting finding that considerable expenses have been claimed under the following

DCIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, PATNA vs. M/S DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

iv) Pharmacy receipts – Rs. 35,09,829.00 (v) Other receipts – Rs. 12,24,776.25 Furthermore, the Ld. AO found that the receipts from pharmacy exceeded the tolerance limit of 20% as per the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. It is seen that there is also a supporting finding that considerable expenses have been claimed under the following