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 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 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

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 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

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

PRABHAT KUMAR,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

Appeal is allowed\nfor statistical purposes

disallowing and adding back the index cost of improvement to\nthe tune of Rs.1,72,34,608 (Actual cost of improvement Rs.12,01,200 X 264/184)\nclaimed by the appellant in its return of income for the purpose of long term capital\ngain and taxing the same as capital gain, notwithstanding the fact that the\nappellant has given sufficient documentary

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. SINCON INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

200/-. The assessee\nis engaged in the business of construction and maintenance of roads,\nbridges, etc. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under\nComputer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for the reason that the\nsubstantial purchases were made from the suppliers who had not filed\nthe returns of income. The Learned AO noted that in case

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