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

2 & 3 are inter-connected grounds therefore we first take these grounds of appeal. 3. In these grounds, the Revenue has pleaded that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in rejecting the books of account and estimating the profits, whereas ld. Assessing Officer has specifically made disallowances of Rs.1,44,87,045/- and Rs.1,43,10,424/- under sections 40A

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

section 40A(3). However, the appellant has not disclosed this sum in the return of income. On the basis of impounded material SSY-1, the AO worked out unaccounted purchase payments for masoor and masoor dal beyond Rs. 20000/- in cash at Rs. 5.45.53,743/- and on the basis of impounded document SSY-4 such disallowance in respect of Matar/Matar

DIVYA PRAKASH,BHOJPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

2), the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded.” 8. A bare perusal of the sub section-1 would reveal that powers of revision granted

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. INDIA CARRIERS PVT LTD, PATNA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rajesh Kumar

2,45,46,279/- was paid other than by cash mode and accordingly the difference between the two figures was disallowed on the ground payments in contravention of section 40A

ITO, WARD-2(1), BEGUSARAI vs. SHRI PREM CHAND KESHRI, LAKHISARAI

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rajesh Kumar

Section 40A(3) of the Act and submission made by AR of the assessee which revealed that the assessee has violated the provision in making the payment against the purchase of the goods only to the amount of Page 2 of 4 I.T.A. No.: 99/PAT/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Prem Chand Keshri. Rs. 150000/- as detailed above

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

SANJAY KUMAR SHAH,ARARIA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

section 40A(3) of the Act are not applicable in the case of commission agents and, therefore, no disallowance is called for. Assessee also submitted that it has made payments to various farmers which is covered as exception in rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and, therefore, be allowed. Before the Ld. CIT(A), assessee placed reliance

JANARDAN PRASAD,PATNA vs. CIT (A), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2009-10

2 Shri Janardan Prasad, AY: 2009-10 disallowance made in respect of the payments made to the suppliers of material in the assessee’s contract business by applying the provisions of section 40A

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

S.RANJAN & BROTHERS,MUZAFFARPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Ranjan & Brothers Dcit, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur Puja Bazar, Motijheel, Muzaffarpur- Vs 842001. Pan: Aaofs 8056 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.08.2021 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

disallowance u/s 40A(3) cannot be made. Moreover, the alleged payments for the materials purchased were capitalize and depreciation was claimed on capital assets purchased by the assessee. Therefore, the application of section 40A(3) is not attract in the case of assessee. 6. On the other hand ld. DR supported the confirmation of addition made

AJAY KUMAR GHOSH,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance under section 40A(3) could be made or not. It requires evidence as to how payments in cash were made by the assessee. Similarly the other item could not be completed without an inquiry. Such type of addition cannot be made after scrutiny assessment by way of 154 rectification order. On the simple reason, this order

SAJJAN BAJAJ vs. PR. C. I. T.,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Sajjan Bajaj, Bhagalpur issued show-cause notice for exercising powers under section 263 on items, i.e. expenses incurred in cash in violation of section 40A(3) and from unexplained cash credit. He pointed out that once the books are rejected, then, no cognizance could be taken qua the payments made in violation to section 40A

MAHENDRA PRASAD,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, ITD, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

40A(3) of the Act could be verified. However, after being given repeated opportunities as mentioned above, the assessee did not submit any such details. Therefore, the books of account of the assessee were rejected as per the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act and since the expenses could not be verified due to failure of the assessee