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

II. ITA No. 331/PAT/2024; AY 2013-14: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 25/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060138818(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for Assessment Year 2013-14 by the Ld. First Appellate Authority

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

II. ITA No. 331/PAT/2024; AY 2013-14: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 25/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060138818(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for Assessment Year 2013-14 by the Ld. First Appellate Authority

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

II. ITA No. 331/PAT/2024; AY 2013-14: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 25/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060138818(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for Assessment Year 2013-14 by the Ld. First Appellate Authority

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

II. ITA No. 331/PAT/2024; AY 2013-14: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 25/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060138818(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for Assessment Year 2013-14 by the Ld. First Appellate Authority

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

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 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

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

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

ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 44,70,128/- made by the AO on account of provision for food and beverage to staff in office premises by admitting fresh evidence during the course of appellate proceedings and without allowing the Assessing Officer

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. SONAMOTI AGROTECH PVT LTD, PATNA

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

32 of the paper book. Similarly he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-vs.- Mamta Agrawal in ITA 191/2022. He filed copy of this judgment also. Apart from these judgments, which are placed on the record. He made reference to a large number of decisions

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

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

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