PATWARI STEELS PVT LTD,PATNA vs. DC/AC, CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of 2 AY: 2018-19 Patwari Steels Pvt. Ltd. Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.4,05,746/-. Since the issue raised in the grounds taken by the assessee has been adjudicated by the recent verdict

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:

section 36(2) of the Act. 5. Accordingly, no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground and appeals already filed, if any, on this issue before various Courts/Tribunals may be withdrawn/not pressed upon. 6. This may be brought to the notice of all concerned.” The ld. DR could not rebut the above submission of the ld. AR, in view

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.

36 | 71 Assessment Year : 2010 -2011 filing of primary evidence of investors does not discharge the onus cast on the assessee company by virtue of section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 19. With regard to decision relied by ld D.R. in the case of Shree Bhagwati Concast Pvt Ltd., (supra), the fact were that the assessee received share

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

section 36(1)(va) from beginning being similar to that now held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC), the base of Checkmate's case is changed and disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) is not warranted upto asst. yr. 2020-21 even in case of belated deposit

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

disallow Rs.2,25,91,254/- u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. The impugned amount represented delayed payment of employees' contribution towards PF and another amount of Rs.20,78,087/- u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. it needs to be mentioned that the second amount is not under challenge before the ITAT. 1.2. Aggrieved with

JCIT(IN-SITU), CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. TECHNOCULTURE BUILDING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

disallowance of the deduction, even if the payment was made before the due date for filing the ROI. We need to remind ourselves that this is exactly the case in the present appeal. The judgment reinforced the distinction between employer and employee contributions. While an employer's contributions could be governed by section 43B of the Act, employees' contributions

DCIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, PATNA vs. M/S DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 2(15) of the Act. It is seen that there is also a supporting finding that considerable expenses have been claimed under the following heads, which have been debited as under: Expenses Claimed A.Y. 13-14 A.Y. 12-13 Advertisement 3,881,536.00 36,890.00 Consumables 5,387,964.00 3,853,562.00 Power & Fuel 2

DCIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, PATNA vs. M/S DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 2(15) of the Act. It is seen that there is also a supporting finding that considerable expenses have been claimed under the following heads, which have been debited as under: Expenses Claimed A.Y. 13-14 A.Y. 12-13 Advertisement 3,881,536.00 36,890.00 Consumables 5,387,964.00 3,853,562.00 Power & Fuel 2

DCIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, PATNA vs. M/S DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 2(15) of the Act. It is seen that there is also a supporting finding that considerable expenses have been claimed under the following heads, which have been debited as under: Expenses Claimed A.Y. 13-14 A.Y. 12-13 Advertisement 3,881,536.00 36,890.00 Consumables 5,387,964.00 3,853,562.00 Power & Fuel 2

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

2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 43,67,25,641/- made by the AO u/s 36(1)(viia) on account of provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts

SIS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act cannot be made on the ground that the appellant had failed to rectify the reporting error on ESI/PF Portal. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or vary, any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2

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

disallowed Rs. 6,79,97,094/- which is being deleted and AO has been directed to allow the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) of Rs. 10,00,00,000/-.” 11. Going over the facts of the case as well as the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. BIHAR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK, MUNGER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowance of Rs. 2,76,084/- was made and the same was added back to the income of the assessee before set off of losses. Thereafter, the ld. AO further observed that the assessee had claimed an amount of Rs. 3.65 crores towards provision for bad and doubtful debts. However, the AO observed that the deduction is governed

I.T.O., WARD -2(1),, PATNA vs. M/S BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Amit Shukla, Jm Ita No. 144/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Ita No. 145/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Bihar State Food & Civil Ward-2(1), Supplies Corporation Ltd., Sone Bhawan, 5Th Floor, Birchand Patna Patel Marg, Patna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb0679F Assessee By : Sh. Manish Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Archna Sinha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Two Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Order Each Dated 21.07.2017 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Patna

2 ITA No. 144 & 145/Pat./2017 Bihar State Food and Civil Corporation Ltd. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that the AO made the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the reasons that the contribution of the employer’s & employees

I.T.O., WARD -2(1),, PATNA vs. M/S BIHAR STATE FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Amit Shukla, Jm Ita No. 144/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Ita No. 145/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Bihar State Food & Civil Ward-2(1), Supplies Corporation Ltd., Sone Bhawan, 5Th Floor, Birchand Patna Patel Marg, Patna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb0679F Assessee By : Sh. Manish Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Archna Sinha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.03.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Two Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Order Each Dated 21.07.2017 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Patna

2 ITA No. 144 & 145/Pat./2017 Bihar State Food and Civil Corporation Ltd. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that the AO made the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the reasons that the contribution of the employer’s & employees

AJIT KUMAR SINGH,PATNA vs. DCIT/AC, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 72/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ajit Kumar Singh Dc/Ac, Circle-4, Patna Geeta Mansion, Gujral Path Vs Nalapar, P.O. Keshrinagar Rajivnagar Patna - 800024 [Pan : Algps9902G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 05/08/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Regarding The Disallowance U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Payment Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi Of Rs.1,80,45,483/-, Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer As Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A). 3. We Have Heard Rival Contentions & Perused The Material Placed Before Us. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating To The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,80,45,483/- Made By The Assessing Officer/Cpc U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act, On Account Of Delay In Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf & Esi. It Remains An Admitted Fact

disallowance of Rs. 1,80,45,483/- made by the Assessing Officer/CPC u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act, on account of delay in deposit of employees’ contribution to PF & ESI. It remains an admitted fact I.T.A. No. 72/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ajit Kumar Singh 2 that the same has been deposited after the due date prescribed under

SAMASTIPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, DARBHANGA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. What is to be allowed u/s. 36(1)(vii) of the Act is actual write- off of a bad debt and not a mere Provision for bad and doubtful debts. The claim before us is in respect of the amortization of premium paid on acquisition of Government Securities classified under HTM category

THE SIWAN CENTRAL CO.-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,SIWAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 36(viia) of the I.T. Act whereas the entire bad debt is an allowable deduction. 15. For that the disallowance of Rs.3,20,487/- and additions of Rs.2,95,62,024/-sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case. 16. For that the order

THE SIWAN CENTRAL CO.-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,SIWAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 36(viia) of the I.T. Act whereas the entire bad debt is an allowable deduction. 15. For that the disallowance of Rs.3,20,487/- and additions of Rs.2,95,62,024/-sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case. 16. For that the order