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 section 40A(3), we have noticed the details. If certain employees have withdrawn this amount from the Bank and taken to the Cash Book, then it would not become separately an unexplained cash credit. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has taken note of these facts in the light of incompleteness of the accounts of the assessee. These

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

disallowance computed at the rate of 10% on Freight & wages expenses, Miscellaneous expenses, travelling and conveyance expenses etc. 6. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the first addition of ₹8,02,45,293/- made by the learned Assessing Officer under Section 40A(3) of the Act in respect

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

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 a sum of Rs. 1,35,56,279/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has also recorded a finding that the books were audited and the auditors have not pointed out any discrepancy of that sort. The AO has made the addition on basis of conjectures and surmises without corroborating the fact of cash payments

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

5% payment in cash amounting to 1655,900/­ is for the requirement & purpose of business only. On such circumstances the failure of the learned A.R. in so many words cannot be the basis for disallowance particularly when every .payees and the payer are the resident of same place. Therefore, the addition made by disallowing the expenses on commission payment without

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)

5 Ravi Lochan Singh It is my opinion that the assessee has claimed Rs. 2,93,160/- under the head of consultancy fee but he has not deducted TDS on the payments u/s 194J. Therefore, the AO proceeded to make disallowance of Rs. 2,93,160/- u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added back

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 to this effect

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 of the assessee. Ld. Commissioner has rightly exercised power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly this appeal devoids of any merit, hence dismissed. 12 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Divya Prakash 10. In the result, the appeal

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

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

5 Shri Janardan Prasad, AY: 2009-10 6. It was a submission that in view of the provisions of Rule 6DDJ as there was no bank account in the relevant village, the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act could not be applied on the limited issue of disallowance

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

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

40A(3) of the Income Tax Act ought to have been examined and should have been disallowed. The ld. Commissioner lost the site that once books are rejected, then it is to be construed that no details regarding such claim of expenditure, which can be relied upon, are available. As far as action of the ld. Assessing Officer qua rejection

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