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.30,52,571/- on the account of expenses claimed in the profit and loss account for expenses made on account of corporate social responsibility (in short CSR) in Financial Year 2011-12 corresponding to Assessment Year 2012-13, notwithstanding the fact that the Explanation (2) of sub-Section (1) of Section 37

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.30,52,571/- on the account of expenses claimed in the profit and loss account for expenses made on account of corporate social responsibility (in short CSR) in Financial Year 2011-12 corresponding to Assessment Year 2012-13, notwithstanding the fact that the Explanation (2) of sub-Section (1) of Section 37

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.30,52,571/- on the account of expenses claimed in the profit and loss account for expenses made on account of corporate social responsibility (in short CSR) in Financial Year 2011-12 corresponding to Assessment Year 2012-13, notwithstanding the fact that the Explanation (2) of sub-Section (1) of Section 37

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.30,52,571/- on the account of expenses claimed in the profit and loss account for expenses made on account of corporate social responsibility (in short CSR) in Financial Year 2011-12 corresponding to Assessment Year 2012-13, notwithstanding the fact that the Explanation (2) of sub-Section (1) of Section 37

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.

2) of the Act on 22.11.2017 which is under limitation period and the reassessment has also been completed on 29.12.2017, which is under the limitation period and the reassessment has also been completed on 29.12.2017, which is under the time limit as prescribed u/s.153 of the Act. Therefore, this ground of assessee is also rejected. 13. We further notice that

RAJ CONSTRUCTION,KATIHAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHAGALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raj Construction Circle – 1(1), C/O Mahadev Ghosh, Bhagalpur, Advocate Vs. Bf-199, Salt Lake City, R.N. Plaza, R.B.S.S Kolkata-700064 Sahay Road, Bhagalpur, Bihar- 812001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajfr6306F Assessee By : Shri Mahadev Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2024

37,71,018.00 since Sales and purchases of the appellant, Firm has been accepted by the Ld. Assessing Officer. No expenditure has been disallowed by the Ld. A.O and moreover, books of accounts has not been rejected. Hence the addition of total sundry creditors including earlier years creditors is unwarranted, unjustified, and liable to be deleted. 5. That under

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

disallowance under these sections, the profit of the assessee deserves to be estimated. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm derives income as a civil contractor. It has filed its return of income on 12.10.2009 showing total income of Rs.36,09,014/- on a total turnover of Rs.9,71,11,489/-. The case

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]

37,74,508/- but bills for an amount of Rs. 1,36,11,905/- could be filed and remaining amount of Rs. 1,62,603/- were not able to filed by the assessee. Similarly, in relation to furniture & fixtures, bills were not produced for an amount of Rs. 17,85,223/-. Accordingly, the ld. AO reduced the depreciation claimed

ITO, WARD-2(1), BEGUSARAI, BEGUSARAI vs. MANISH KUMAR MOTANI, KHAGARIA, BIHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and CO of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajjpm4263D Co No. 02/Pat/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 442/Pat/2024 For A.Y. 2017-18) Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri A.K. Rastogi, S.K. Duta, Ars Revenue By : Shri A.H. Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

2,91,58,150/-, In aggregate the total disallowance u/s 40A(3) was worked out at Rs. 8.02.45.293/-, During assessment proceedings the appellant sought to take shelter of Rule 6DD claiming payment to agriculturist and business expenditure of incurring expenditure in Manish Kumar; A.Y. 2017-18 ITA No. 442/PAT/2024 & CO No.2/PAT/2025 cash. The AO held that payments were made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA., FOURTH FLOOR, DAKBUNGLOW CHAURAHA, PATNA vs. BIHAR RAJYA PUL NIRAMAN NIGAM LIMITED, SARDAR PATEL MARG, PATNA

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is allowed

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

2 to section 37 of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015. It is mentioned that through this amendment any expense incurred under the head CSR as referred to in section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013, shall not be deemed to be an expenditure incurred by the assessee for the purpose of business of profession

PAVAN KUMAR BHAGAT,SAHARSA vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), SAHARSA, SAHARA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowing and adding Rs.11,65,739 claimed as commission expenses by the appellant, solely on the ground that the said deduction is not allowable in view of violation of provision of section 194G of the Act and section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, without considering the fact that the commission have been paid genuinely and through banking mode

GUPTA JI BROTHERS RICE PRIVATE LIMITED,DALMIA NAGAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3, GAYA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

2 I.T.A. No. 33/Pat/2023 Gupta Ji Brothers Rice Private Limited this disallowance from the AO's order. The Ld. AR also relied on certain case laws to support his arguments in this regard. Regarding the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the Ld. AR stated that the payments made to persons arranging for purchase of paddy were

ASHOK KUMAR,BHOJPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, ARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

2) is to be given in the cases where an assessee has filed the return. It is the first opportunity given to the assessee that what he wants to submit in support of his return. In a case when no return is being filed, the ld. Assessing Officer can initiate the investigating machinery by issuance of a questionnaire under section

SUNYNA KUMAR GUPTA,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 90/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sunyna Kumari Gupta, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Prop: M/S Sona Drug Agency, Tax, Circle-4, Road No. 1, Lohanipur, Rajendra Patna Nagar, Patna-800016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpg6521C Assessee By : Sh. K. N. Prasad, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Abhay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement :16 .03.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.02.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Patna.

2, the grievance of the assessee relates to the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.23,86,950/- made by the AO on account of Commission & Brokerage Charges and Ground Nos. 3, relates to the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.11,70,600/- under the head ‘Machine Maintenance Charges’. These two grounds are adjudicated simultaneously. ITA No. 90/Pat./2017 3 Sunyna Kumari Gupta

GOODHOST LIQUORS PVT LTD. vs. DCIT,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

2) were issued and served upon the assessee. An assessment order was passed under section 143(3) on 30.12.2009 and thereafter it was reopened. It appears that revisionary powers were exercised by the ld. Commissioner and this assessment order was set aside in pursuance of the ld. Commissioner’s order, ld. Assessing Officer has passed the fresh order

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

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

2: This ground is directed against the charging of interest u/s.234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. As this ground is consequential in nature, the same do not require separate adjudication. 6. Ground No. 3 to 6: These grounds are general in nature and hence not adjudicated. 7 In the result the appeal for A.Y.2008-09 is allowed”. 14 Assessment Year

BLUECHIP ASSET PRIVATE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS BLUECHIP ADVISORY PVT. LTD,PATNA vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 37(3A) of Act which was proposed to be added to the income of the assessee after issuing a show cause notice with draft assessment order. Final assessment order was passed at the total income of Rs. 40,10,200/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has extracted

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)

section 44ADA of the Act I.T.A. Nos. 17 to 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2019-20 Sunita Kumari I.T.A. No. 25/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 I.T.A. No. 26/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 I.T.A. No. 27/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Uday Shankar Arun I.T.A. No. 28/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Jeevan Rekha Diagnostic & Nursing Home 18 have rightly been applied