GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

AKSHAY EDUCATIONAL & SOCIAL WELFARE CHARITABLE TRUST,BODHGAYA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, GAYA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.03/Pat/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Akshay Educational & Social Welfare Charitable Trust............……….……Appellant Amawa (Thakar), Bodhgaya-824234. [Pan:Aacta5613R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-3, Gaya….....………............…............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Adv. & Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 11, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.08.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

disallowance @ 20% amounting to Rs.89,598/- out of expenditure incurred under the head food & beverages. 9. For that the addition/disallowance sustained are wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant case. 10. For that the whole order is bad in fact and law of the case and is fit to be modified

M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

disallowed nor any addition was made. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) quashed the reassessment proceedings holding that the assessee had disclosed all the facts and no new fact was available to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it was mere change of opinion on the part of the Assessing Officer and as such, the reassessment proceedings could not have been validly initiated

SIS CASH SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

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

1)(a) of the 1961 Act. The Court held as under: "...If an appeal lies, section 31 of the Act describes the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in such an appeal. Under section 31(3)(a) in disposing of such an appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner may, in the case of an order of assessment, confirm, reduce, enhance

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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. AJIT KUMAR, BETTIAH

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

42 & 44, the A.O. has disallowed a sum of Rs.3,52,82,071/- at S.No. 02 of his order. This is incorrect both primarily and legally. The A.O. has committed error in disallowing amount u/s 40A(3), from out of books day book entries, which was not the part of the audited accounts. Therefore, this disallowance is incorrect and cannot

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

B] Vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Muzaffarpur..................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Adv., appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Saumyajit Das Gupta, CIT D/R, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : August 30th, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : September 20th, 2022 I.T.A. Nos.: 29 & 30/Pat/2019 Assessment Years

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

B] Vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Muzaffarpur..................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Adv., appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Saumyajit Das Gupta, CIT D/R, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : August 30th, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : September 20th, 2022 I.T.A. Nos.: 29 & 30/Pat/2019 Assessment Years

SEEMA SRIVASTAVA,PATNA vs. ITO,DC/AC-6, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

42,852/-. Further, the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 2,58,34,383/- u/s 54 of the Act and had shown ‘NIL’ income from long term capital gains on sale of immovable property during the year under consideration. It was also noted that the assessee had received Rs. 4,95,59,000/- from Arnyana Engycon