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)]

Section 28(iv) of the Act. I, therefore, delete the addition made by the AO u/s 28(iv) of the Act and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and allow ground no. 1 of the assessee’s appeal. 5. The issue in ground no. 2 relates to the disallowance

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

Section 37 of the Act was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, w.e.f. 1.4.2015 and was applicable from Assessment Year 2015-16 and that the said provision was not applicable in the Assessment Year 2013-14 and that the application of the said provision is only prospective. 10. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal

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 37 of the Act was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, w.e.f. 1.4.2015 and was applicable from Assessment Year 2015-16 and that the said provision was not applicable in the Assessment Year 2013-14 and that the application of the said provision is only prospective. 10. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal

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 37 of the Act was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, w.e.f. 1.4.2015 and was applicable from Assessment Year 2015-16 and that the said provision was not applicable in the Assessment Year 2013-14 and that the application of the said provision is only prospective. 10. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal

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 37 of the Act was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, w.e.f. 1.4.2015 and was applicable from Assessment Year 2015-16 and that the said provision was not applicable in the Assessment Year 2013-14 and that the application of the said provision is only prospective. 10. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal

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 37 of the Act was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, w.e.f. 1.4.2015 and was applicable from Assessment Year 2015-16 and that the said provision was not applicable in the Assessment Year 2013-14 and that the application of the said provision is only prospective. 10. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal

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 37 of the Act was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, w.e.f. 1.4.2015 and was applicable from Assessment Year 2015-16 and that the said provision was not applicable in the Assessment Year 2013-14 and that the application of the said provision is only prospective. 10. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal

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 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

SOCIETY FOR ADVANCEMENT OF VILLAGE ECONOMY,GAYA vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

28 to 44 of the Act. Both the lower authorities failed to appreciate that proviso to section 2(15) was not applicable to the appellant and further provisions of Section 13(8) were also not applicable. It be so held now by granting exemption u/s. 11 of the Act as claimed. 5. FOR THAT Ld. CIT (A) erred

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

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

2(24)(x) of the Act, leading to disallowance of this sum to the extent not paid on or before the due date stipulated in the respective PF and ESI Act. The above view has been taken by the coordinate bench of ITAT, Chennai in the case of Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co.P.Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Chennai vide I.T.A.No.765/CHNY/2022

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

2. Sri Janak Kumar Singh 43,30,000/- 3. Sri Baramdev Yadav 28,60,400/- 4. Sri Ashok Yadav 32,56,424/- 5. Sri Manish Kumar 1,00,000/- ___________________ Total: 1,43,10,424/- ___________________ 13. It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee has not shown this expense separately, in its audit report. Had the books

SHRAWAN GOENKA,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.12/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shrawan Goenka........................................…...........................……….……Appellant C/O Nirmal & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Nepai Kothi, Opp. Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001. [Pan:Adcpg8792N] Vs. Acit, Circle-6, Patna.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 28, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 6 , 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Hazaribagh [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

28, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : June 6 , 2022 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 20.03.2020 of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Hazaribagh [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee

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 54F & 54EC of the Act is hereby deleted. As regards the addition on account of disallowance of claim of loan liability to the tune of Rs. 34,00,000/- On perusal of assessment order, it is observed that after availing several opportunities the appellant has not provided the reason why the name of M/s Rohit ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021

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 54F & 54EC of the Act is hereby deleted. As regards the addition on account of disallowance of claim of loan liability to the tune of Rs. 34,00,000/- On perusal of assessment order, it is observed that after availing several opportunities the appellant has not provided the reason why the name of M/s Rohit ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021

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 54F & 54EC of the Act is hereby deleted. As regards the addition on account of disallowance of claim of loan liability to the tune of Rs. 34,00,000/- On perusal of assessment order, it is observed that after availing several opportunities the appellant has not provided the reason why the name of M/s Rohit ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021