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

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

disallowed u/s 40A(3). Relevant head note is quoted as under: "[Section 37(1), read with sections 40A(3) and 145, of the Income

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

disallowed on the ground payments in contravention of section 40A(3) of the Act and added the same to the income

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. The assessee explained before the appellate authority that all the payments were made otherwise than in cash except only Rs. 1,50,000/- as detailed above was made exceeding the prescribed limit. We note that Ld. CIT(A) has recorded a finding that Ld. AO has acted arbitrarily making the disallowance

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

disallowing the expenses on commission payment without bringing even a single payment in cash is bogus when the very purpose of section 40A(3

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

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

disallowance under section 40A(3), therefore, no inquiry has been made by the ld. Assessing Officer while accepting the accounts

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

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(3

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

section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act ought to have been examined and should have been disallowed. The ld. Commissioner

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

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

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

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

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

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 etc. and that all the 6 AY: 2012-13 Bihar Kshetriya Gramin Bank inadmissible amounts had already been added back in the computation of income. He further drew attention to the observation made by the AO at page 8 of the assessment order that there is no unreasonable increase in operative expenses as compared to earlier year

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

disallowing Rs. 1,40,675/- u/s 40a(ia) for non deduction of tax on expenses under the head advertisement and publicity. 8. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 3,68,41,943/-on account of provisions made for various items listed at 2nd page of the impugned order. 9. For that

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

disallowing Rs. 1,40,675/- u/s 40a(ia) for non deduction of tax on expenses under the head advertisement and publicity. 8. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 3,68,41,943/-on account of provisions made for various items listed at 2nd page of the impugned order. 9. For that