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

RAVI LOCHAN SINGH,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PATNA

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

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

section 40(a)(ia) is attracted here also. Hence, It is my opinion that the assessee has claimed Rs. 18,91,877/- under the head of advertisement but he has not deducted TDS on the payments. Therefore, the AO proceeded to make disallowance of Rs. 18,91,877/- u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added

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

ACIT, PATNA vs. NEW ERA SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT WELFARE SOCIETY, PATNA

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

disallowed by the undersigned. After due consideration of facts & circumstances and verification of documents available in this office, the income of the assessee AOP/BOI is computed u/s 144 i.e. Best Judgment Assessment as Rs. 5,80,39,300/-.” 1.2 Aggrieved with this action, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A), who has in principle supported the action

KISHORI CAPITAL MARKETS PVT. LTD.,BBD BAGH (EAST) vs. ITO WARD 2(1), PATNA, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

1), Patna. The learned AO after going over the documents filed by the assessee in support of the claim made by the assessee do not find satisfactory, as a result of which a sum of Rs. 40,34,780/- is disallowed u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules

ANIL KUMAR,NALANDA vs. ITO, WARD- 2 (3), BIHARSHARIF

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 361/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anil Kumar National Faceless Assessment Centre M/S Raj Trading Company, Nfac, Delhi Harnaut, Nalanda, Patna-803110 Vs Bihar [Pan : Azopc268H] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

disallowance of Rs. 1,44,000/-by the AO is justified in view of Section 40(a)(ia). 10. For that

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

Section 36(1)(viia) stipulates the allowability of claim in the manner prescribed and the manner has been prescribed in rule 6ABA. The appellant has made the calculation as per rule and I do not find any discrepancy in the same. In view of the provisions of rule 6ABA of IT Rules, 1962, 10% of the aggregate rural average advance

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

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

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

disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur (supra). Besides, as rightly pointed

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

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

40(a)(ia) by the ld. Assessing Officer will only add to the income of the assessee, which otherwise is exempt under section 10(23C) as stated above. Therefore, the disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer will not create any tax liability of the assessee. In view of this, the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals

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

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

40(a)(ia) by the ld. Assessing Officer will only add to the income of the assessee, which otherwise is exempt under section 10(23C) as stated above. Therefore, the disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer will not create any tax liability of the assessee. In view of this, the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals

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. 11. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs.2,88,460/- on the ground that the same is on account of income tax. 12. For that the disallowance of Rs. 1,40

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. 11. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs.2,88,460/- on the ground that the same is on account of income tax. 12. For that the disallowance of Rs. 1,40

LAL BABU PRASAD,SIWAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARPUR

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

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

1,40,000 was disallowed under section 43B of the Act. Accordingly, the assessment was completed making various additions. 3 Lal Babu

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]

section 40A, 43B, 40(a) could not be made. Therefore, he viewed that to cover any leakage of revenue, he disallowed the expenses of Rs. 2 crores and added the same to the total income of the assessee. However, the ld. CIT(A) while deciding this issue, he called for remand report from the AO in this regard

DEEPAK SHRAWAN BUDHIA,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF I.T., PATNA-1, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowance of expenditure on account of non-deduction of TDS on freight as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the 1

SANOJ KUMAR SINGH ,HAJIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3) , VAISHALI

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer computed the disallowance merely on an estimation basis, the As- sessing Officer noted that total turnover/sales of the assessee during the year were Rs. 5,07,59,673/- out of which the assessee has deposited cash to the tune of Rs. 1

ARANYA CLEARERS,GAYA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), GAYA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

1 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Aranya Clearers, Gaya section 144 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Ld. Assessing Officer has determined the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.61,50,860/-. He made three additions to the income of the assessee. The computation made at the end of the assessment order reads as under:- Total income