LAKSHMI MANDAL,MADHUBANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MADHUBANI

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

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

disallowed under section 43B of the Act, and cash deposit of ₹27,48,500/- in the bank account during the year

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]

48 taxman.com 120(Delhi-Trib.) In view of the above judgments, I hereby quash the assessment made on10.12.2019 ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya The A.R has further argued, that without prejudice to the illegal initiation of proceedings under section 147 and the issuance of Notice

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]

48 taxman.com 120(Delhi-Trib.) In view of the above judgments, I hereby quash the assessment made on10.12.2019 ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya The A.R has further argued, that without prejudice to the illegal initiation of proceedings under section 147 and the issuance of Notice

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]

48 taxman.com 120(Delhi-Trib.) In view of the above judgments, I hereby quash the assessment made on10.12.2019 ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya The A.R has further argued, that without prejudice to the illegal initiation of proceedings under section 147 and the issuance of Notice

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]

48 taxman.com 120(Delhi-Trib.) In view of the above judgments, I hereby quash the assessment made on10.12.2019 ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya The A.R has further argued, that without prejudice to the illegal initiation of proceedings under section 147 and the issuance of Notice

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]

48 taxman.com 120(Delhi-Trib.) In view of the above judgments, I hereby quash the assessment made on10.12.2019 ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya The A.R has further argued, that without prejudice to the illegal initiation of proceedings under section 147 and the issuance of Notice

RANI DEVI,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

48,74,289/- ) and the difference of income as determined under section 44AD and net profit shown by the assessee, which comes to Rs.28,91,375/- was added to the total income of the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer disallowed

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

sections. 9. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission along with documents and evidences on or before date of hearing. 10. For that the appellant may be given opportunity of personal hearing physically/virtually at the time of hearing of the appeal. 11. For that the whole order is bad in fact

JCIT(IN-SITU), CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. TECHNOCULTURE BUILDING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes\nand Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

disallowance of the deduction, even if the payment was made before the due date\nfor filing the ROI. We need to remind ourselves that this is exactly the case in the present\nappeal. The judgment reinforced the distinction between employer and employee\ncontributions. While an employer's contributions could be governed by section 43B of the\nAct, employees' contributions

JOINT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX(IN-SITU), CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. NORTH BIHAR POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and COs of the\nassessee are dismissed

disallowance of ₹72,67,00,000/-\nby the learned CIT (A) as made by the Id. AO on account of\ndelayed payment surcharge by the consumers.\n4.1. The learned AO during the assessment proceeding noted\nfrom the documents/evidences furnished by assessee that\nassessee had followed mercantile/ accrual system of\naccounting and with regard to delayed payment of surcharge

JCIT(IN-SITU), CIRCLE-1, PATNA., PATNA vs. NORTH BIHAR POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and COs of the\nassessee are dismissed

disallowance of ₹72,67,00,000/-\nby the learned CIT (A) as made by the Id. AO on account of\ndelayed payment surcharge by the consumers.\n4.1. The learned AO during the assessment proceeding noted\nfrom the documents/evidences furnished by assessee that\nassessee had followed mercantile/ accrual system of\naccounting and with regard to delayed payment of surcharge

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. NORTH BIHAR POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and COs of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowance of ₹72,67,00,000/- by the learned CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO on account of delayed payment surcharge by the consumers. 4.1. The learned AO during the assessment proceeding noted from the documents/evidences furnished by assessee that assessee had followed mercantile/ accrual system of accounting and with regard to delayed payment of surcharge (DPS) assessee

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

48,64,960/-. The case of the assessee was 2 I.T.A. No. 29/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank selected for scrutiny, notices were issued and after hearing the assessee the assessment was completed by declaring total income of Rs. 1,32,07,19,840/- as the AO has added an amount

MATA LALTI DEVI FOUNDATION,ARA vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (4), ARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

48,618/-.\nThe assessee has raised two issues before us one is that since the\nassessee is an educational institutions income is exempted u/s\n10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act and is not required to get registered under\nthe Act. It was also submitted that the assessee trust is required u/s\n10(23)(vi) of the Act to be registered

GYASUDDIN MOHAMMAD ANSARI,PURNIA vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (3), PURNEA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 80 E had been wrongly claimed. In fact, the assessee had sold a commercial is of land and furnish the working of capital loss of ₹ 240,000 and relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of gets a (India) Ltd vs CIT. The AO did not accept the contention of the assessee as according