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

V. ITA No. 334/PAT/2024; AY 2017-18: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 24/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060086025(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for Assessment Year 2017-18 by the ld. First Appellate Authority

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

V. ITA No. 334/PAT/2024; AY 2017-18: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 24/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060086025(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for Assessment Year 2017-18 by the ld. First Appellate Authority

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

V. ITA No. 334/PAT/2024; AY 2017-18: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 24/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060086025(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for Assessment Year 2017-18 by the ld. First Appellate Authority

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

V. ITA No. 334/PAT/2024; AY 2017-18: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 24/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060086025(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for Assessment Year 2017-18 by the ld. First Appellate Authority

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

V. ITA No. 334/PAT/2024; AY 2017-18: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 24/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060086025(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for Assessment Year 2017-18 by the ld. First Appellate Authority

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

V. ITA No. 334/PAT/2024; AY 2017-18: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 24/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060086025(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for Assessment Year 2017-18 by the ld. First Appellate Authority

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

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

v. CIT [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC) case, there was considerable judicial debate on whether delayed employee contributions to PF and ESI could be allowed as deductions under Section 43B, provided they were paid before the due date of filing the return of income (ROI). In Checkmate Services case (supra) the Supreme Court provided much needed clarity on the interpretation

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

47,000/- Vinod Kumar 20-11-2008 PNB-9926 797772 2,00,000/- TOTAL 1,44,87,045/- Signed and stamped copy of ledgers of above parties in assessee’s books is placed on record. In order to verify, whether the bills for above payments were 7. in excess of Rs. 20,000/- or not, the assessee was repeatedly asked

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

47 Taxmann.Com 210 (Del) which has interpreted undisclosed income unearthed during the search to imply incriminating material, as against the finding of the Delhi High Court in Filatex India Ltd. v. CIT- IV (2015) 229 Taxman 555 wherein it is held that during the assessment u/s 153A additions need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found during

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

47 Taxmann.Com 210 (Del) which has interpreted undisclosed income unearthed during the search to imply incriminating material, as against the finding of the Delhi High Court in Filatex India Ltd. v. CIT- IV (2015) 229 Taxman 555 wherein it is held that during the assessment u/s 153A additions need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found during

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

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

v. CIT [2022]\n448 ITR 518 (SC) case, there was considerable judicial debate on whether delayed employee\ncontributions to PF and ESI could be allowed as deductions under Section 43B, provided\nthey were paid before the due date of filing the return of income (ROI). In Checkmate\nServices case (supra) the Supreme Court provided much needed clarity on the interpretation

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

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,PATNA, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

47,04,929/- . This deduction u/s 80IA of he Act was not made in the original return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act on 31st October, 2018. During the course of assessment proceedings carried out after valid issuance of notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, ld. AO on going through the available records noticed that

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, PATNA, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

47,04,929/- . This deduction u/s 80IA of he Act was not made in the original return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act on 31st October, 2018. During the course of assessment proceedings carried out after valid issuance of notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, ld. AO on going through the available records noticed that

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

47,04,929/- . This deduction u/s 80IA of he Act was not made in the original return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act on 31st October, 2018. During the course of assessment proceedings carried out after valid issuance of notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, ld. AO on going through the available records noticed that

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 PATNA, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

47,04,929/- . This deduction u/s 80IA of he Act was not made in the original return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act on 31st October, 2018. During the course of assessment proceedings carried out after valid issuance of notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, ld. AO on going through the available records noticed that