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

4. That the appellant states that Explanation (2) of sub-Section (1) of Section 37 of the Act was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, w.e.f. 1.4.2015 and was applicable from Assessment Year 2015-16. Copy of Section 37 of the Act is enclosed. 5. That the appellant states that the above said provision was not applicable

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

4. That the appellant states that Explanation (2) of sub-Section (1) of Section 37 of the Act was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, w.e.f. 1.4.2015 and was applicable from Assessment Year 2015-16. Copy of Section 37 of the Act is enclosed. 5. That the appellant states that the above said provision was not applicable

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

4. That the appellant states that Explanation (2) of sub-Section (1) of Section 37 of the Act was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, w.e.f. 1.4.2015 and was applicable from Assessment Year 2015-16. Copy of Section 37 of the Act is enclosed. 5. That the appellant states that the above said provision was not applicable

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

4. That the appellant states that Explanation (2) of sub-Section (1) of Section 37 of the Act was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, w.e.f. 1.4.2015 and was applicable from Assessment Year 2015-16. Copy of Section 37 of the Act is enclosed. 5. That the appellant states that the above said provision was not applicable

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

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

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

4. The only issue raised by the Revenue in the various grounds of appeal is against the order of learned CIT (A) deleting the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer of ₹8,02,45,293/-, which was in violation to the Provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and not allowable as deduction

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)

disallowance of Rs. 74,025/- are too exacting for allowability for expenses under Section 37(1) of the Act. We accordingly direct that the quantum of said expenditure added back, should be deleted. 3.1 Regarding the addition of Rs. 7,01,962/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, it is seen that while the Ld. AR has been

M/S PSP TRADING PVT LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 2 (1), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), which is wrong, illegal and unjustified.\n2.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee engaged in the business of wholesale trading of iron and steel mostly on consignment basis. The return o9f income was filed u/s 139 of the Act declaring income of ₹48,13,270. The case

KOSHLESH VARIJ LOCHAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO WARD- 1 (1), MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed”

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

37,964/-, Rs. 3,50,317/- and Rs.6,82,357/- for Assessment Year 2019-20, 2021-22 and 2022-23; respectively, on the ground of delay in filing of Form 67. We note that the assessee has obtained Form 67 at a later date and had efiled on the Income-tax portal with all necessary attachments. Form 67 for Assessment

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

DINA NATH YADAV,PATNA vs. ITO WARD - 4(2), PATNA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUAMR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

4. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case the Id. AO has assessed the income under section 143(3) of the Act without considering the facts in the matter of land acquisition under the provision of section 3A of the National Highway Act, 1956 and confirmation of the same

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)

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

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

Section 37 prohibits allowance of any deduction of alleged expenditure, which was incurred towards activities prohibited by law. If this amount is being allowed to the assessee as a deduction, what is the use of imposing penalty under the Excise/VAT 4 Assessment Year: 2007-2008 Goodhost Liquors Pvt. Ltd. Law because from one hand, the assessee made the payment

ASKLEPIOS REMEDIES PVT. LTD,PATNA vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purpose

section 37\nand the Circular of the CBDT whereas the fact remains that major part of\nexpense are not freebies to Doctors.\n9. For that the sustenance of disallowance by CIT(A) is wrong, illegal and\nunjustified on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case.\n10. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written\nsubmission

NORTH BIHAR POWER DISTRUBUTION CO. LTD,PATNA vs. PR. CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

section (1) after the expiry of two 3 North Bihar Power Distribution Co. Ltd. AY 2017-18 years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed.” 4. Ground 4: The learned PCIT has erred in law, and passed an order u/s 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 by non-considering replies

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

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

4,00,000/- Ltd., Kolkata 7. Bhagya Vinimay Pvt. Rs. 5,00,000/- Ltd., Kolkata 8. Seltron Finance Ltd., Rs. 12,00,000/- Kolkata On the other hand, the appellant contended that, during the course of assessment proceeding it had submitted complete details of share application money received along with the name and address of the applicants. Further in order

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA, PATNA vs. SMT. SIPRA GUPTA, PATNA

disallowing deduction under section 80TTA\nat Rs.263 whereas in fact he has accepted the bank interest as income from other\nSources.\nFor that the charming of interest under section 234A is bad in law as original return as\nwell as return filed under section 148 is well within time. The consequential relief\nunder section 234B may be allowed in case