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

1) passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2018-19 by the Ld. assessing officer at Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, is bad both in law and on facts. 4. For that the appellant was not given any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, to put forth his contentions and place evidences henceforth

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

1) passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2018-19 by the Ld. assessing officer at Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, is bad both in law and on facts. 4. For that the appellant was not given any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, to put forth his contentions and place evidences henceforth

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

1) passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2018-19 by the Ld. assessing officer at Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, is bad both in law and on facts. 4. For that the appellant was not given any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, to put forth his contentions and place evidences henceforth

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

1) passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2018-19 by the Ld. assessing officer at Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, is bad both in law and on facts. 4. For that the appellant was not given any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, to put forth his contentions and place evidences henceforth

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 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

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.

32. The Assessing Officer determined the taxable income making additions and disallowances. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 and reopened the assessment P a g e 10 | 71 Assessment Year : 2010 -2011 under section 147 on the basis of under assessment. The assessee objected to the reopening of assessment. Though the assessment was reopened

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

32 of the impugned order. It also contains the remand report submitted by the ld. Assessing Officer in the appellate proceeding. 8. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted the addition of Rs.2,00,04,931/- in A.Y. 2016-17 and all the additions made in A.Y. 2017-18, namely Rs.1,06,02,895/- as well as Rs.5

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

32 of the impugned order. It also contains the remand report submitted by the ld. Assessing Officer in the appellate proceeding. 8. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has deleted the addition of Rs.2,00,04,931/- in A.Y. 2016-17 and all the additions made in A.Y. 2017-18, namely Rs.1,06,02,895/- as well as Rs.5

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

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 of A/c not perused thoroughly, this fact would have gone unnoticed. As this expense is in the nature of rent, therefore

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

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

disallowed. Penalty proceeding was also initiated and the order under section 270A was passed on 10/02/2022 treating the sum of ₹3,80,091/- as misreporting of income. In the penalty order, the Ld. AO has mentioned that in view of the provision of section 270AA(3), the assessee’s case was not eligible for grant of immunity and the penalty

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR vs. M/S UTTAR BIHAR GRAMIN BANK, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, Rule 2ABA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and after going through the remand report of the Ld. AO has given his findings as under: “I have gone through the submissions made by learned A/R of the appellant, the assessment order and the remand report. On the first issue of allowability of additional

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR vs. M/S UTTAR BIHAR GRAMIN BANK, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.A. No. 29/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur M/S Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank

32,07,19,840/- as the AO has added an amount of Rs. 10,70,70,590/- u/s 36(1)(viia) and further added Rs. 6,79,97,094/- by making disallowance u/s 36(1)(viii) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein 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