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

47,34,169/- was disallowed which was claimed as a deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act as against the total interest earned at ₹ 71,91,44,620/- and the total income was assessed at ₹74,78,32,931/-. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition on account of disallowance u/s 80-IA of the Act by relying upon I.T.A

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

47,34,169/- was disallowed which was claimed as a deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act as against the total interest earned at ₹ 71,91,44,620/- and the total income was assessed at ₹74,78,32,931/-. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition on account of disallowance u/s 80-IA of the Act by relying upon I.T.A

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

47,34,169/- was disallowed which was claimed as a deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act as against the total interest earned at ₹ 71,91,44,620/- and the total income was assessed at ₹74,78,32,931/-. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition on account of disallowance u/s 80-IA of the Act by relying upon I.T.A

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

47,34,169/- was disallowed which was claimed as a deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act as against the total interest earned at ₹ 71,91,44,620/- and the total income was assessed at ₹74,78,32,931/-. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition on account of disallowance u/s 80-IA of the Act by relying upon I.T.A

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

47,34,169/- was disallowed which was claimed as a deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act as against the total interest earned at ₹ 71,91,44,620/- and the total income was assessed at ₹74,78,32,931/-. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition on account of disallowance u/s 80-IA of the Act by relying upon I.T.A

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

47,34,169/- was disallowed which was claimed as a deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act as against the total interest earned at ₹ 71,91,44,620/- and the total income was assessed at ₹74,78,32,931/-. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition on account of disallowance u/s 80-IA of the Act by relying upon I.T.A

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

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

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

disallowance under these sections, the profit of the assessee deserves to be estimated. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm derives income as a civil contractor. It has filed its return of income on 12.10.2009 showing total income of Rs.36,09,014/- on a total turnover of Rs.9,71,11,489/-. The case

DIVYA PRAKASH,BHOJPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. Under the facts and circumstances, his total income Is assessed u/s 143(3) of the. Income Tax Act at total income of Rs.7,47,137/-. Allowed deduction u/s 80C of Rs.21000/- of the Act. Issue demand notice and challan accordingly”. 4. The ld. Principal Commissioner perused the assessment record

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

disallowance of unsecured loan, in para 3 of the assessment order the Assessing Officer has discussed that on examination of book of the assessee it is found that an amount of Rs. 1,06,0? 895/- has shown loan received from M/s Trailblazer Edusol Pvt. Ltd. and in absence of any explanation Assessing Officer made addition of the same

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

disallowance of unsecured loan, in para 3 of the assessment order the Assessing Officer has discussed that on examination of book of the assessee it is found that an amount of Rs. 1,06,0? 895/- has shown loan received from M/s Trailblazer Edusol Pvt. Ltd. and in absence of any explanation Assessing Officer made addition of the same

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

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

47,11,24,529/- and reduced the consequential addition to ₹2,53,93,612/- instead of ₹4,40,58,124/- made by the Ld. AO. He also deleted the additions of ₹3,52,82,071/- made under section 40A(3) of the Act as the transactions in the impounded documents were out of books and these expenses had not been

SANGAM ALMIRAH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUZAFFARPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2. For that the learned CIT(A) is not justified in not adjudicating the specific grounds taken with regard to limitation of penalty proceeding and the I.T.A. No.: 338/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sangam Almirah Private Limited. mandatory affording of opportunity of hearing as per provision of section 270AA (4) of the I.T. Act. 3. For that the penalty order

SEEMA SRIVASTAVA,PATNA vs. ITO,DC/AC-6, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

sections. 9. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission along with documents and evidences on or before date of hearing. 10. For that the appellant may be given opportunity of personal hearing physically/virtually at the time of hearing of the appeal. 11. For that the whole order is bad in fact

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA, PATNA vs. SMT. SIPRA GUPTA, PATNA

47 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I quash the notice\nissue under Section 148. The ground taken is allowed.”\n3.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials\navailable on record, we find that the learned CIT (A) has passed a\nvery cryptic and unreasoned order on this issue and quashed the\nreopening of assessment without giving any cogent reasons

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

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

2: This ground is directed against the charging of interest u/s.234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. As this ground is consequential in nature, the same do not require separate adjudication. 6. Ground No. 3 to 6: These grounds are general in nature and hence not adjudicated. 7 In the result the appeal for A.Y.2008-09 is allowed”. 14 Assessment Year

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

47,559/- 2. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that imposing penalty without proper service of notice and adequate opportunity and thus has violated the principles of equity and natural justice. 3. For that the sustenance of penalty by CIT (A) NFAC is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

47,559/- 2. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has failed to appreciate that imposing penalty without proper service of notice and adequate opportunity and thus has violated the principles of equity and natural justice. 3. For that the sustenance of penalty by CIT (A) NFAC is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances