PRASHANT PACKAGING PVT.LTD,PATNA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIR-2, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

43 taxmann.com 199 (Guj)\n\"Section 40.1(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 6DD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962-\nBusiness disallowance - Cash payment exceeding prescribed limits (Rule 6DD(J)-Assessment year 2006-07 Assessee was working as an agent of Tata Tele Services Limited for distributing mobile cards and recharge vouchers-Principal company Tata insisted

PUNAM HISARIA,SITAMARHI vs. DC/AC, CIRCLE-03, DARBH, DARBH

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.80/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Punam Hisaria ………. Appellant (Pan: Abupa3945R)

disallowed 30 percent of amount of Freight paid to the transporters who have given declaration for non-deduction of TDS in compliance of Section 194C(6) but failed to file statement in Form 26Q as required U/s 194C(7) of the Income Tax act, 1961. 2. Ground 2. For that CIT(A) could not consider the fact that all freight

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 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 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

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR vs. M/S UTTAR BIHAR GRAMIN BANK, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.A. No. 29/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur M/S Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank

43,632/-. The Ld. CIT(A) has also allowed the appeal of the assessee on an amount of Rs. 6,79,97,094/-. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the revenue has preferred an appeal before us. 4. The Ld. DR challenges the impugned order thereby submitting that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the disallowance

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR vs. M/S UTTAR BIHAR GRAMIN BANK, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 36(1)(viia) does not make any distinction between PA or NPA. The provision is allowable to the extent of total allowable limit i.e. Rs. 311.52 crores. Since, only Rs. 57.80 crore has been allowed as provision for NPA, this claim of Rs. 1.74 crore should be further allowed. In this case of Delhi High Court has accepted

SRIRAM ENTERPRISES,BHAGALPUR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, PATNA, PATNA

43 Lakh\nPage 4\nI.T.A. No.: 607/PAT/2024\n Assessment Year: 2021-22\nSriram Enterprises.\nwas made. The sums outstanding were added as the notices u/s 133(6)\nof the Act issued by the Ld. AO were not responded by the parties and\nthe amounts were in relation to the services and goods purchased and\nthe same were treated as unexplained

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

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. Under the facts and circumstances, his total income Is assessed u/s 143(3) of the. Income Tax Act at total income of Rs.7,47,137/-. Allowed deduction u/s 80C of Rs.21000/- of the Act. Issue demand notice and challan accordingly”. 4. The ld. Principal Commissioner perused the assessment record

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

6. CIT Vs. Bihari Lal Agrawal[2013] 33 taxmann.com 553 (Allahabad); 1. ITO Vs. DD Ahuja & Brothers [2014] 45 taxmann.com336(Lucknow-trib.); 2. G.N.Mohan Raju Vs. ITO[2015] 57 taxmann.com 415 (Bangalore-Trib.); 3. Mohinder Kumar Chhabra Vs. ITO [2014] 48 taxman.com 120(Delhi-Trib.) In view of the above judgments, I hereby quash the assessment made on10.12.2019

KUMAR ARUNOSAYA,PATNA vs. A.O., CIRCLE-6, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

6. CIT Vs. Bihari Lal Agrawal[2013] 33 taxmann.com 553 (Allahabad); 1. ITO Vs. DD Ahuja & Brothers [2014] 45 taxmann.com336(Lucknow-trib.); 2. G.N.Mohan Raju Vs. ITO[2015] 57 taxmann.com 415 (Bangalore-Trib.); 3. Mohinder Kumar Chhabra Vs. ITO [2014] 48 taxman.com 120(Delhi-Trib.) In view of the above judgments, I hereby quash the assessment made on10.12.2019

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

6. CIT Vs. Bihari Lal Agrawal[2013] 33 taxmann.com 553 (Allahabad); 1. ITO Vs. DD Ahuja & Brothers [2014] 45 taxmann.com336(Lucknow-trib.); 2. G.N.Mohan Raju Vs. ITO[2015] 57 taxmann.com 415 (Bangalore-Trib.); 3. Mohinder Kumar Chhabra Vs. ITO [2014] 48 taxman.com 120(Delhi-Trib.) In view of the above judgments, I hereby quash the assessment made on10.12.2019

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

6. CIT Vs. Bihari Lal Agrawal[2013] 33 taxmann.com 553 (Allahabad); 1. ITO Vs. DD Ahuja & Brothers [2014] 45 taxmann.com336(Lucknow-trib.); 2. G.N.Mohan Raju Vs. ITO[2015] 57 taxmann.com 415 (Bangalore-Trib.); 3. Mohinder Kumar Chhabra Vs. ITO [2014] 48 taxman.com 120(Delhi-Trib.) In view of the above judgments, I hereby quash the assessment made on10.12.2019

KUMAR ARUNODAYA,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6, PATNA [NEW – DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, PATNA], PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

6. CIT Vs. Bihari Lal Agrawal[2013] 33 taxmann.com 553 (Allahabad); 1. ITO Vs. DD Ahuja & Brothers [2014] 45 taxmann.com336(Lucknow-trib.); 2. G.N.Mohan Raju Vs. ITO[2015] 57 taxmann.com 415 (Bangalore-Trib.); 3. Mohinder Kumar Chhabra Vs. ITO [2014] 48 taxman.com 120(Delhi-Trib.) In view of the above judgments, I hereby quash the assessment made on10.12.2019

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

43,02,386/-. Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 & C.O. Nos. 1 & 2/PAT/2022 (in ITA 62 & 63/PAT/2021) Assessment years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 Broadson Commodities Pvt. Limited 6. The ld. Assessing Officer has issued notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) in both the years. In A.Y. 2016-17, ld. Assessing Officer has observed that a perusal

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

43,02,386/-. Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 & C.O. Nos. 1 & 2/PAT/2022 (in ITA 62 & 63/PAT/2021) Assessment years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 Broadson Commodities Pvt. Limited 6. The ld. Assessing Officer has issued notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) in both the years. In A.Y. 2016-17, ld. Assessing Officer has observed that a perusal