BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 2(1) PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowing Rs.30,52,570/- on the account of expenses claimed in the profit and loss account for expenses made on account of corporate social responsibility (in short CSR) in Financial Year 2013-14 corresponding to Assessment Year 2014-15, notwithstanding the fact that the Explanation (2) of sub-Section (1) of Section 37 of the Act was inserted

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

disallowing Rs.30,52,570/- on the account of expenses claimed in the profit and loss account for expenses made on account of corporate social responsibility (in short CSR) in Financial Year 2013-14 corresponding to Assessment Year 2014-15, notwithstanding the fact that the Explanation (2) of sub-Section (1) of Section 37 of the Act was inserted

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

disallowing Rs.30,52,570/- on the account of expenses claimed in the profit and loss account for expenses made on account of corporate social responsibility (in short CSR) in Financial Year 2013-14 corresponding to Assessment Year 2014-15, notwithstanding the fact that the Explanation (2) of sub-Section (1) of Section 37 of the Act was inserted

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

disallowing Rs.30,52,570/- on the account of expenses claimed in the profit and loss account for expenses made on account of corporate social responsibility (in short CSR) in Financial Year 2013-14 corresponding to Assessment Year 2014-15, notwithstanding the fact that the Explanation (2) of sub-Section (1) of Section 37 of the Act was inserted

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

disallowing Rs.30,52,570/- on the account of expenses claimed in the profit and loss account for expenses made on account of corporate social responsibility (in short CSR) in Financial Year 2013-14 corresponding to Assessment Year 2014-15, notwithstanding the fact that the Explanation (2) of sub-Section (1) of Section 37 of the Act was inserted

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

disallowance under section 40A(3) for the expenditure debited in the regular books of accounts only, where assessee maintains regular books of accounts. 5

SHRAWAN GOENKA,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.12/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shrawan Goenka........................................…...........................……….……Appellant C/O Nirmal & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Nepai Kothi, Opp. Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001. [Pan:Adcpg8792N] Vs. Acit, Circle-6, Patna.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 28, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 6 , 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Hazaribagh [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:

5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, rectify, modify or otherwise alter any ground of appeal.” 2. Ground No.1 &2 are general in nature. I.T.A. No.12/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shrawan Goenka 3. Ground No.3 – Vide Ground No.3, the assessee has agitated against the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of bad debts of Rs.2

ANUP KUMAR HUF,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENT. CIR-1, PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 192/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Anup Kumar Huf,…………………...….………Appellant 4A, Narayan Nilayam Apartment, Road No. 6 Rajendra Nagar, Patna-800016 Bihar [Pan:Aahha5422R] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax....Respondent Central Circle-1, Patna

disallowed Rs.15,11,000/- and added back to the total income of the assessee as undisclosed income from other sources of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and determined the total taxable income of the assessee at Rs,27,00,410/-. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 5. The assessee

M/S BIHAR STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN. LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

disallowing the claim of provision for Storage Loss amounting to Rs. 5.00 Crore under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 3. The Appellant prays that the addition of Rs. 5.00 Crore (Rs. Five Crore Only) made in respect of Provision for Storage Loss be deleted." 4. That the whole order passed

ITO, WARD-4(1), PATNA vs. HEMANT KUMAR DAS, PATNA

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

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

5 & 6 are general grounds of appeal, which do not call for recording of any specific finding. 11. Grounds No. 1, 2 & 3 contains two-fold of grievances, namely- (i) the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.50,11,003/-, which was disallowed with the aid of section

BIHAR COMBINED ENTRANCE COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION BOARD,PATNA vs. ACIT(EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE), PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act”). The disallowances of payments to printer for printing of examination question papers has been made on the ground that the assessee has filed to deduct tax at source on payment made for printing of examination question papers. The ld. Assessing Officer also mentions that there

BIHAR COMBINED ENTRANCE COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION BOARD,PATNA vs. ACIT(EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE), PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act”). The disallowances of payments to printer for printing of examination question papers has been made on the ground that the assessee has filed to deduct tax at source on payment made for printing of examination question papers. The ld. Assessing Officer also mentions that there

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

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 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

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

5% payment in cash amounting to 1655,900/­ is for the requirement & purpose of business only. On such circumstances the failure of the learned A.R. in so many words cannot be the basis for disallowance particularly when every .payees and the payer are the resident of same place. Therefore, the addition made by disallowing the expenses on commission payment without