SHEKHAR NARAYAN,PATNA vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of expense of Rs. 07,32,030/-. ITA Nos.: 354 & 355/PAT/2025 AYs: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shekhar Narayan. 10. For that the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi has failed to consider that the as per section

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

32,756/- on account of bank contra entries, estimated the undisclosed turnover at ₹47,11,24,529/- 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

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

disallowing Rs.51,32,41,851/- on the account of deduction claimed u/s 80-IA of the Act due to interest income from Fixed Deposit, Saving Account and other income. 9. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. We will take up the 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

disallowing Rs.51,32,41,851/- on the account of deduction claimed u/s 80-IA of the Act due to interest income from Fixed Deposit, Saving Account and other income. 9. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. We will take up the 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

disallowing Rs.51,32,41,851/- on the account of deduction claimed u/s 80-IA of the Act due to interest income from Fixed Deposit, Saving Account and other income. 9. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. We will take up the 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

disallowing Rs.51,32,41,851/- on the account of deduction claimed u/s 80-IA of the Act due to interest income from Fixed Deposit, Saving Account and other income. 9. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. We will take up the 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

disallowing Rs.51,32,41,851/- on the account of deduction claimed u/s 80-IA of the Act due to interest income from Fixed Deposit, Saving Account and other income. 9. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. We will take up the 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

disallowing Rs.51,32,41,851/- on the account of deduction claimed u/s 80-IA of the Act due to interest income from Fixed Deposit, Saving Account and other income. 9. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. We will take up the appeal

RAVI LOCHAN SINGH,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PATNA

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

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

section 32(1) of IT Act. Hence, the appellant's contention that the addition was arbitrary found incorrect and after considering the facts and merits of the case, I dismissed this ground. Ground No- 3 regarding disallowance

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

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

VIKRAMSHILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LTD,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHAGALPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

32 (2) of the Act, the allowance of the part of the allowance to which effect has not been given, shall be added to the amount 3 Vikramshila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkar Sangh Ltd. of the allowance for depreciation for the following previous year and deemed to be part of that allowance or if there is no such allowance for that

ACIT, PATNA vs. NEW ERA SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT WELFARE SOCIETY, PATNA

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

32 dated 4th January 1988 in its ITR. But assessee did not submit copy of certificate of registration after giving several opportunities to justify its claim i.e. Details of project and institution run by assessee, for which it has claimed exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the I. T. Act, 1961. Further, for claiming exemption under section 11, assessee

SRIRAM ENTERPRISES,BHAGALPUR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, PATNA, PATNA

32,73,262, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that disallowance cannot be made solely because parties are non-filers and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, allowing another opportunity for verification. For the sum of Rs 10,00,479, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the CIT(A) for verification of payments

MITHILESH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (3), SAMASTIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.427/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mithilesh Prasad…………….………………. …………………....Appellant S/O Ram Bhakta Baitha, Damodarpur, Muzaffarpur, Bihar-842001. [Pan: Ankpp5641D] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3), Samastipur…....……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 08, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 12, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.08.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Dealer Of M/S Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Ioc) & Derives Income From The Sale Of Lpg Cylinders. For The Assessment Year 2017–18, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of ₹6,04,460. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Made Various

disallowance of expenses claimed in the Profit & Loss Account amounting to ₹617878/- 3. Cash deposits of ₹63,29,000 during the demonetisation period, out of which 10%, i.e., ₹6,32,900, was added under section