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

31-3-2014 was to be allowed as deduction under section 37(1)" Copy of judgments is enclosed. 7. That the appellant states that in the above order of assessment, the Id assessing officer, without giving the appellant any opportunity much less sufficient opportunity, held that the amount of Rs.66,47,34,169/- claimed as deduction under Section

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

31-3-2014 was to be allowed as deduction under section 37(1)" Copy of judgments is enclosed. 7. That the appellant states that in the above order of assessment, the Id assessing officer, without giving the appellant any opportunity much less sufficient opportunity, held that the amount of Rs.66,47,34,169/- claimed as deduction under Section

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

31-3-2014 was to be allowed as deduction under section 37(1)" Copy of judgments is enclosed. 7. That the appellant states that in the above order of assessment, the Id assessing officer, without giving the appellant any opportunity much less sufficient opportunity, held that the amount of Rs.66,47,34,169/- claimed as deduction under Section

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

31-3-2014 was to be allowed as deduction under section 37(1)" Copy of judgments is enclosed. 7. That the appellant states that in the above order of assessment, the Id assessing officer, without giving the appellant any opportunity much less sufficient opportunity, held that the amount of Rs.66,47,34,169/- claimed as deduction under Section

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 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 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

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.

31 | 71 Assessment Year : 2010 -2011 applicable in the present case. Ld. DR further relied on the order of coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shree Bhagwati Concast Pvt. Ltd, in ITA No.33/JP/2015, order dated 16.02.2018. 11. Ld. DR also submitted that the provisions Section 68 require to prove by the assessee of three ingredients i.e. identity

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

31-05-2008 PNB-9926 821336 1,50,000/- Subhash Kumar 08-09-2008 PNB-9926 797767 5,00,000/- Subodh Kumar 08-07-2008 SBI-347 735727 6,1 1,600/- Vinod Chandra 14-07-2008 Dena-285 975914 1,47,000/- Vinod Kumar 20-11-2008 PNB-9926 797772 2,00,000/- TOTAL 1,44,87,045/- Signed

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

31, 2023 O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member:- This appeal at the instance of assessee for assessment year 2019-20 is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 15.09.2021, which is arising out of the order under section 143(1) of 1

SANOJ KUMAR SINGH ,HAJIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3) , VAISHALI

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer computed the disallowance merely on an estimation basis, the As- sessing Officer noted that total turnover/sales of the assessee during the year were Rs. 5,07,59,673/- out of which the assessee has deposited cash to the tune of Rs. 1

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

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

Bench: the sale of immovable properties on which long term capital gain was derived.

disallowing deduction claimed under Section 54F of the Act for Rs. 3,02,11,651/- and three other additions were made as per section 143(1)(a) of the Act for Rs. 11,64,260/-, as per para 3.1.1, Rs. 1,75,000/- and as per para 3.3 of Rs. 2,05,609/-. 3. Aggrieved from the above order

UDAY SHANKAR ARUN,GAYA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

1) of the Act and get them audited under section 44AB of the Act and furnish a report thereof as provided under section 44ADA of the Act. Since in the instant case, the assessee is having professional income and net income declared is less than 50% of the gross professional receipts and books of accounts are not audited under section

UDAY SHANKAR ARUN,GAYA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

1) of the Act and get them audited under section 44AB of the Act and furnish a report thereof as provided under section 44ADA of the Act. Since in the instant case, the assessee is having professional income and net income declared is less than 50% of the gross professional receipts and books of accounts are not audited under section

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

1) of the Act and get them audited under section 44AB of the Act and furnish a report thereof as provided under section 44ADA of the Act. Since in the instant case, the assessee is having professional income and net income declared is less than 50% of the gross professional receipts and books of accounts are not audited under section

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

1) of the Act and get them audited under section 44AB of the Act and furnish a report thereof as provided under section 44ADA of the Act. Since in the instant case, the assessee is having professional income and net income declared is less than 50% of the gross professional receipts and books of accounts are not audited under section