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

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 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

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. 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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. AJIT KUMAR, BETTIAH

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

4. From the texts of section 40A(3) reproduced by the CIT-A, it is crystal clear that the business income of an assessee, which has to be determined applying section 28 to 43 of the ITA act, covers disallowance

PREM KUMAR GOUTAM,LAKHISARAI vs. ITO WARD- 2 (5), LAKHISARAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed under section 69C. He charged the taxes @ 60% under section 115BBE. Thereafter ld. Assessing Officer has observed that interest be charged and penalty proceeding under section 270A has also been initiated. 4

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 80IA(4). I have considered the entire gamut of this issue. There is no dispute on the fact that the appellant has entered into an agreement with Bihar Rajya Jal Parishad for construction of Drinking Water Supply. There is also no dispute that the deduction u/s 80IA was not claimed by the appellant in its original return

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 PATNA, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 80IA(4). I have considered the entire gamut of this issue. There is no dispute on the fact that the appellant has entered into an agreement with Bihar Rajya Jal Parishad for construction of Drinking Water Supply. There is also no dispute that the deduction u/s 80IA was not claimed by the appellant in its original return

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, PATNA, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 80IA(4). I have considered the entire gamut of this issue. There is no dispute on the fact that the appellant has entered into an agreement with Bihar Rajya Jal Parishad for construction of Drinking Water Supply. There is also no dispute that the deduction u/s 80IA was not claimed by the appellant in its original return

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,PATNA, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 80IA(4). I have considered the entire gamut of this issue. There is no dispute on the fact that the appellant has entered into an agreement with Bihar Rajya Jal Parishad for construction of Drinking Water Supply. There is also no dispute that the deduction u/s 80IA was not claimed by the appellant in its original return

BIHAR STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,PATNA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Section 40A(7) of the Act as been reported\nby the tax auditor at ₹98,23,310/- being debited to the Profit and Loss\naccount, whereas the same represented the total amount outstanding\nas per the balance sheet in the said account. The assessee submitted\nthat the actual gratuity paid during the year was ₹39,88,247/-, which

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

LAKSHMI MANDAL,MADHUBANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MADHUBANI

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

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

4,81,780/-, after making an addition of ₹ 78,890/-. On examination of the records, the Principal CIT invoked 2 Lakshmi Mandal revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. He observed that statutory liability of ₹92,734/- under the head “tax payable” was wrongly allowed and not disallowed

PUNRASAR JUTE PARK LIMITED,PURNEA vs. CIT, PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 80-IA(4)(iv) claimed and allowed on generation and sale of steam by assessee was to be disallowed

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

4) of the Act, the assessee furnished Form 67 and also filed the 7 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Koshlesh Varij Lochan revised return. I am of the considered view that the claim of the assessee towards withholding taxes paid in Tanzania is to be given against the tax liability on the income declared in India. Even otherwise filing of Form