BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIR-2, P)ATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

47,34,169/- claimed as deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act, was not allowable on the sole ground that interest income is not entitled for benefit of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. 8. That the appellant states that the Id assessing officer disallowing

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

47,34,169/- claimed as deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act, was not allowable on the sole ground that interest income is not entitled for benefit of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. 8. That the appellant states that the Id assessing officer disallowing

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, COR-2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

47,34,169/- claimed as deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act, was not allowable on the sole ground that interest income is not entitled for benefit of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. 8. That the appellant states that the Id assessing officer disallowing

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN.LTD.,PATNA vs. CIT (APPEAL), DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

47,34,169/- claimed as deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act, was not allowable on the sole ground that interest income is not entitled for benefit of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act. 8. That the appellant states that the Id assessing officer disallowing

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 these sections, the profit of the assessee deserves to be estimated. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm derives income as a civil contractor. It has filed its return of income on 12.10.2009 showing total income of Rs.36,09,014/- on a total turnover of Rs.9,71,11,489/-. The case

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

47,11,24,529/- and reduced the consequential addition to ₹2,53,93,612/- instead of ₹4,40,58,124/- made by the Ld. AO. He also deleted the additions of ₹3,52,82,071/- made under section 40A(3) of the Act as the transactions in the impounded documents were out of books and these expenses had not been

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA, PATNA vs. SMT. SIPRA GUPTA, PATNA

47 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I quash the notice\nissue under Section 148. The ground taken is allowed.”\n3.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials\navailable on record, we find that the learned CIT (A) has passed a\nvery cryptic and unreasoned order on this issue and quashed the\nreopening of assessment without giving any cogent reasons

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

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

SANGAM ALMIRAH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUZAFFARPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed. Penalty proceeding was also initiated and the order under section 270A was passed on 10/02/2022 treating the sum of ₹3,80,091/- as misreporting of income. In the penalty order, the Ld. AO has mentioned that in view of the provision of section 270AA(3), the assessee’s case was not eligible for grant of immunity and the penalty

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

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 PATNA, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 801A could not be audited as the assessee failed to claim the same while filing return u/s 139. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna failed to appreciate the fact that the auditor in his audit report did not confirmed eligibility of deduction u/s 80IA

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 801A could not be audited as the assessee failed to claim the same while filing return u/s 139. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna failed to appreciate the fact that the auditor in his audit report did not confirmed eligibility of deduction u/s 80IA

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, PATNA, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 801A could not be audited as the assessee failed to claim the same while filing return u/s 139. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna failed to appreciate the fact that the auditor in his audit report did not confirmed eligibility of deduction u/s 80IA

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,PATNA, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 801A could not be audited as the assessee failed to claim the same while filing return u/s 139. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna failed to appreciate the fact that the auditor in his audit report did not confirmed eligibility of deduction u/s 80IA

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. SONAMOTI AGROTECH PVT LTD, PATNA

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

47 Taxmann.Com 210 (Del) which has interpreted undisclosed income unearthed during the search to imply incriminating material, as against the finding of the Delhi High Court in Filatex India Ltd. v. CIT- IV (2015) 229 Taxman 555 wherein it is held that during the assessment u/s 153A additions need not be restricted or limited to incriminating material found during

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

disallowance of unsecured loan, in para 3 of the assessment order the Assessing Officer has discussed that on examination of book of the assessee it is found that an amount of Rs. 1,06,0? 895/- has shown loan received from M/s Trailblazer Edusol Pvt. Ltd. and in absence of any explanation Assessing Officer made addition of the same

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

disallowance of unsecured loan, in para 3 of the assessment order the Assessing Officer has discussed that on examination of book of the assessee it is found that an amount of Rs. 1,06,0? 895/- has shown loan received from M/s Trailblazer Edusol Pvt. Ltd. and in absence of any explanation Assessing Officer made addition of the same

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:

section 2(24)(iia) as amended vide Finance Act 1987 and further amended vide Amendment Act 1989, the trust being not registered u/s 12A for the year under consideration, the corpus donation will form part of the taxable income of the assessee trust. In view of the above decision, Ground Nos.1 to 7 of the assessee’s appeal are hereby