PATWARI STEELS PVT LTD,PATNA vs. DC/AC, CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of 2 AY: 2018-19 Patwari Steels Pvt. Ltd. Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.4,05,746/-. Since the issue raised in the grounds taken by the assessee has been adjudicated by the recent verdict

AGLOWMED LIMITED,PATNA vs. ADIT(CPC), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.3,82,386/-. The issue relating to ground taken by the assessee have come to rest by the recent verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services

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

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

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, leading to disallowance of this sum to the extent

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

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 claimed

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

section 36(1)(va) from beginning being similar to that now held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC), the base of Checkmate's case is changed and disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) is not warranted upto asst. yr. 2020-21 even in case of belated deposit

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

24-July-2025 ORDER PER BENCH: These six appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024 AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited (BSRDCL). [hereinafter referred

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

24-July-2025 ORDER PER BENCH: These six appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024 AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited (BSRDCL). [hereinafter referred

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

24-July-2025 ORDER PER BENCH: These six appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024 AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited (BSRDCL). [hereinafter referred

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

24-July-2025 ORDER PER BENCH: These six appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024 AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited (BSRDCL). [hereinafter referred

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

24-July-2025 ORDER PER BENCH: These six appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024 AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited (BSRDCL). [hereinafter referred

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

24-July-2025 ORDER PER BENCH: These six appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024 AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited (BSRDCL). [hereinafter referred

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

PREM KUMAR GOUTAM,LAKHISARAI vs. ITO WARD- 2 (5), LAKHISARAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

24, 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. Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Prem Kumar Goutam (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 24.03.2023 passed for Assessment Year

ARANYA CLEARERS,GAYA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), GAYA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

24,100/- Addition: (i)Contract receipt/fees Rs.7,52,789/- mismatch a discussed above in para 4.1 (ii)Disallowance of expenses as discussed Rs.7,60,359/- above in para 4.2 (iii)Disallowance on account of non- Rs.38,13,610/- deduction of TDS as discussed above in para 4.3 Total assessed income Rs.61,50,858/- Total assessed income (rounded off u/s Rs.61