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

section 80-IA(4) of the Act and accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued 21.04.2016 and served upon the assessee through Speed Post. Subsequently, statutory notices were issued and since the assessee could not furnish the details of the expenditure claimed on account of Corporate Social Responsibility (in short ‘CSR’) amounting to ₹30,52,571/-, interest

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

section 80-IA(4) of the Act and accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued 21.04.2016 and served upon the assessee through Speed Post. Subsequently, statutory notices were issued and since the assessee could not furnish the details of the expenditure claimed on account of Corporate Social Responsibility (in short ‘CSR’) amounting to ₹30,52,571/-, interest

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

section 80-IA(4) of the Act and accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued 21.04.2016 and served upon the assessee through Speed Post. Subsequently, statutory notices were issued and since the assessee could not furnish the details of the expenditure claimed on account of Corporate Social Responsibility (in short ‘CSR’) amounting to ₹30,52,571/-, interest

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

section 80-IA(4) of the Act and accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued 21.04.2016 and served upon the assessee through Speed Post. Subsequently, statutory notices were issued and since the assessee could not furnish the details of the expenditure claimed on account of Corporate Social Responsibility (in short ‘CSR’) amounting to ₹30,52,571/-, interest

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

section 80-IA(4) of the Act and accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued 21.04.2016 and served upon the assessee through Speed Post. Subsequently, statutory notices were issued and since the assessee could not furnish the details of the expenditure claimed on account of Corporate Social Responsibility (in short ‘CSR’) amounting to ₹30,52,571/-, interest

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

disallowed. Penalty proceeding was also initiated and the order under section 270A was passed on 10/02/2022 treating the sum of ₹3,80,091/- as misreporting of income. In the penalty order, the Ld. AO has mentioned that in view of the provision of section 270AA(3), the assessee’s case was not eligible for grant of immunity and the penalty

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

disallowed and added as per Para G of the order passed by the Ld. assessing officer without allowing benefit of indexation available to the assesses ignoring the facts available on record. 9. For that the CIT (Appeal) erred in passing ex-parte confirming adoption of higher valuation Rs. 33,10,200/- & Rs.33,10,200/- i.e Page 4 of 7 I.T.A

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

disallowed and added as per Para G of the order passed by the Ld. assessing officer without allowing benefit of indexation available to the assesses ignoring the facts available on record. 9. For that the CIT (Appeal) erred in passing ex-parte confirming adoption of higher valuation Rs. 33,10,200/- & Rs.33,10,200/- i.e Page 4 of 7 I.T.A

BLUECHIP ASSET PRIVATE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS BLUECHIP ADVISORY PVT. LTD,PATNA vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed as per the provisions of Section 37(3A) of Act which was proposed to be added to the income of the assessee after issuing a show cause notice with draft assessment order. Final assessment order was passed at the total income of Rs. 40,10,200

M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

disallowed the said amount on the ground that mere establishing the identity of the creditor or the transaction have been routed through banking channel is not enough to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. On appeal, the CIT(A) called for remand report from the Assessing officer and after considering the same confirmed the addition. However, the Tribunal

MOTOR MACHINERUY TOOLS,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)]

200/- in the form of credit notes as "Special Redistributor Incentive". It is fact that incentive has been given by the companies to their distributors if they achieve and exceed the target of yearly turnover fixed by the companies. Thus, incentives are directly linked with the turnover of the distributors of the companies. These types of incentives are extra benefit

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

200/- which is bad in fact and law of the case. 7. For that the appellant may not be treated as assessee in default in respect of the disputed demand including interest amounting to Rs.9,80,636/-. 8. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission along with evidences and documents on or before the date

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

200/- which is bad in fact and law of the case. 7. For that the appellant may not be treated as assessee in default in respect of the disputed demand including interest amounting to Rs.9,80,636/-. 8. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission along with evidences and documents on or before the date

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

200/- which is bad in fact and law of the case. 7. For that the appellant may not be treated as assessee in default in respect of the disputed demand including interest amounting to Rs.9,80,636/-. 8. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission along with evidences and documents on or before the date