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 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

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 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

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

23, 2023 Date of pronouncing the order : October 18, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna dated 28.01.2015 passed for A.Y. 2009-10. 1 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 M/s. Kumar Construction 2. Grounds

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 68 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) allowing

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 68 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) allowing

KUMAR ARUNODAYA,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6, PATNA [NEW – DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, PATNA], PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 68 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) allowing

KUMAR ARUNOSAYA,PATNA vs. A.O., CIRCLE-6, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 68 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) allowing

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 68 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) allowing

PRASHANT PACKAGING PVT.LTD,PATNA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIR-2, PATNA, PATNA

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

disallowance could be made under section 40A(3) Held, yes [Para 23] [In favour of the assessee]\"\nCIT vs Smt. Shelly Passi reported in (2013) 350 ITR 227 (P&H)\nIn this case the court upheld the view of the tribunal in not applying section 40A(3) of the Act to the cash payments when ultimately, such amounts were deposited

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 Rs.6,23,78,655/-\nto closing stock stating that there are no defects found by the Assessing Officer in\nbooks of accounts submitted by the appellant. While as per records, the assessee\ndid not submitted specific details as called for during assessment proceedings and\nhence AO did not get the opportunity to point out the defects in books

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

23, 2023 Date of pronouncing the order : October 12, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Principal Commissioner of Income 1 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Divya Prakash Tax, Patna-1 dated 17.02.2022 passed under section 263 of the Income

RAJ CONSTRUCTION,KATIHAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHAGALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raj Construction Circle – 1(1), C/O Mahadev Ghosh, Bhagalpur, Advocate Vs. Bf-199, Salt Lake City, R.N. Plaza, R.B.S.S Kolkata-700064 Sahay Road, Bhagalpur, Bihar- 812001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajfr6306F Assessee By : Shri Mahadev Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2024

disallowed by the Ld. A.O and moreover, books of accounts has not been rejected. Hence the addition of total sundry creditors including earlier years creditors is unwarranted, unjustified, and liable to be deleted. 5. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred by not sending Remand report to the assessing officer for verifying

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

23. Contention – 3 An amending provision can certainly give guidance to interpretation of the existing old provisions. Accordingly, the application of rigour of section 36(1)(va) of the Act w.e.f. asst. yr. 2021-22 (as so held by various benches of Hon'ble Income tax Appellate Tribunal) by Finance Act, 2021 even after recognizing the position

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

BIHAR STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,PATNA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Section 40A(7) of the Act as been reported\nby the tax auditor at ₹98,23,310/- being debited to the Profit and Loss\naccount, whereas the same represented the total amount outstanding\nas per the balance sheet in the said account. The assessee submitted\nthat the actual gratuity paid during the year was ₹39,88,247/-, which

MAHUA COOPERATIVE COLD STORAGE LTD, MAHUA,VAISHALI vs. ADIT,CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

2,23,206/- on account of disallowance of ESI payable u/s 43B of the Act, disallowance u/s 43B of the Act of ₹1,44,04,341/- on account of interest payable to Public Financial Institution. Aggrieved with the intimation order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) who considered the submissions of the assessee. As regards