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). The facts of the instant case are similar. In this case the AO rejected books but failed to estimate profit/taxable income. In fact, the AO has not compared with the GP rate shown by the appellant. The position of GP in previous, current and subsequent year is as under: Comparative chart of sale and GP for five

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

disallowance was deleted.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 40A(7)" ], "issues": "Whether the disallowance of provision for gratuity, interest on EPF and TDS, bonus

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

section 40A(3) of the Act could not be applied on the limited issue of disallowance as the assessee could not be expected to do an act which was impermissible in law. It was also the submission that the total purchase of the assessee was to an extent of Rs.7,77,93,578/- and the gross profit declared

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

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

7 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Divya Prakash Explanation.- In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of sub-section (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

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

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

disallowed u/s 40A(3). In this case you had paid Rs.4,97,700/- to Subodh Kumar and Rs.95,000/- to Kanchan Ghosh for labour payment but TDS not deducted on it. Hence, the same is required to be added back to total income of the assessee”. 4. The ld. Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee did not appear

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

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

section 147 in the case of the appellant on mere change of opinion. 6. For that the authorities below have erred in violating the directions issued by Apex Court issued in the case of GNK Driveshaft. 7. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the appellant has failed to substantiate the disallowance/ additions made

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 147 in the case of the appellant on mere change of opinion. 6. For that the authorities below have erred in violating the directions issued by Apex Court issued in the case of GNK Driveshaft. 7. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the appellant has failed to substantiate the disallowance/ additions made

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