PRASHANT PACKAGING PVT.LTD,PATNA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIR-2, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

4,13,63,240.00 which was subsequently confirmed by the order of Id. CIT(A). Now the issue for our consideration arises so as to whether the disallowance under section 40A(3) is sustainable in the light of the facts & circumstances.\nFrom the perusal of facts of the case we find that admittedly the genuineness of the parties have

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

D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna dated 28.01.2015 passed for A.Y. 2009-10. 1 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 M/s. Kumar Construction 2. Grounds No. 1, 2 & 3 are inter-connected grounds therefore we first take these grounds

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) of Section 80-IA of the Act. 9. That the appellant states that the primary objective of the appellant is construction of roads as per the directions of the State Government of Bihar. For the purpose of execution of the work, the State Government allots funds to the appellant and for the purpose of meeting its administrative expenses

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) of Section 80-IA of the Act. 9. That the appellant states that the primary objective of the appellant is construction of roads as per the directions of the State Government of Bihar. For the purpose of execution of the work, the State Government allots funds to the appellant and for the purpose of meeting its administrative expenses

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) of Section 80-IA of the Act. 9. That the appellant states that the primary objective of the appellant is construction of roads as per the directions of the State Government of Bihar. For the purpose of execution of the work, the State Government allots funds to the appellant and for the purpose of meeting its administrative expenses

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) of Section 80-IA of the Act. 9. That the appellant states that the primary objective of the appellant is construction of roads as per the directions of the State Government of Bihar. For the purpose of execution of the work, the State Government allots funds to the appellant and for the purpose of meeting its administrative expenses

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) of Section 80-IA of the Act. 9. That the appellant states that the primary objective of the appellant is construction of roads as per the directions of the State Government of Bihar. For the purpose of execution of the work, the State Government allots funds to the appellant and for the purpose of meeting its administrative expenses

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) of Section 80-IA of the Act. 9. That the appellant states that the primary objective of the appellant is construction of roads as per the directions of the State Government of Bihar. For the purpose of execution of the work, the State Government allots funds to the appellant and for the purpose of meeting its administrative expenses

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

d) Aggrieved by the order the A.O., the assessee preferred an appeal before CIT(A) on 05.02.2020. The Ld., CIT-A, considered the facts of the case, submissions and arguments made by the assessee. CIT-A passed an order u/s250 on 30.11.2023 partly allowing the appeal. Following reliefs were granted in CIT-A Order:— 1. Addition under 4

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

D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Prem Kumar Goutam (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 24.03.2023 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has taken seven grounds of appeal, which

MAHUA COOPERATIVE COLD STORAGE LTD, MAHUA,VAISHALI vs. ADIT,CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

d) to section 43B of the Act read with Explanation 4(a), “public financial institutions” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956, and NCDC is a public financial institution as per section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956. Thus, the assessee was required to deposit the interest due on the loans

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

D E R PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeals filed by the Revenue, pertaining to assessment years 2018-19 to 2021-22 are directed against the orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna – 3 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. CIT(A)’) even ITA No.294,297 to 299/PAT/2023 Ganadhipati Construction Pvt. Ltd; A.Ys

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

D E R PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeals filed by the Revenue, pertaining to assessment years 2018-19 to 2021-22 are directed against the orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna – 3 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. CIT(A)’) even ITA No.294,297 to 299/PAT/2023 Ganadhipati Construction Pvt. Ltd; A.Ys

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

D E R PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeals filed by the Revenue, pertaining to assessment years 2018-19 to 2021-22 are directed against the orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna – 3 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. CIT(A)’) even ITA No.294,297 to 299/PAT/2023 Ganadhipati Construction Pvt. Ltd; A.Ys

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

D E R PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeals filed by the Revenue, pertaining to assessment years 2018-19 to 2021-22 are directed against the orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna – 3 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ld. CIT(A)’) even ITA No.294,297 to 299/PAT/2023 Ganadhipati Construction Pvt. Ltd; A.Ys

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)

D E R PER SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal arises from order dated 28.02.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2. Brief facts of the Case are that the assessee filed return of income

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

D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member:- The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 1 Punrasar Jute Park Limited National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 17th April, 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal

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

D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member:- The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 24th February, 2023, which is arising out of 1 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Koshlesh Varij Lochan the order under section

BIHAR COMBINED ENTRANCE COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION BOARD,PATNA vs. ACIT(EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE), PATNA

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

D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:- These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against two separate orders both dated 27.11.2017 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Patna for A.Ys. 2014-15 and 2009-10 and since identical issues are involved therein, the same have been heard together and are being disposed