PATWARI STEELS PVT LTD,PATNA vs. DC/AC, CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of 2 AY: 2018-19 Patwari Steels Pvt. Ltd. Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.4,05,746/-. Since the issue raised in the grounds taken by the assessee has been adjudicated by the recent verdict

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 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. 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 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 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 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

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:

5) maintained specifically for such corpus].” Section 12A :- “12A. 79[(1)] 80The provisions of section 11 and section 12 shall not apply in relation to the income of any trust or institution unless the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:— (a) the person in receipt of the income has made an application for registration of the trust or institution

PUNRASAR JUTE PARK LIMITED,PURNEA vs. CIT, PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed the claim made under section 80-IA.” 15. Respectfully following the ratios laid down by the Hon’ble Courts referred hereinabove, we are inclined to hold that the notice under section 148 of the Act issued by the ld. Assessing Officer is illegal and invalid and, therefore, reopening proceedings carried out under section 147 of the Act are invalid

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

5. Ld. PCIT also referred to Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act observing as under:- “12. In the instant case, it is borne out of facts that not only did the assessee fail to file complete details along with supporting evidence and explanation before the Assessing Officer in respect of issues raised in notice[s] u/s 142[1

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

5. Ld. PCIT also referred to Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act observing as under:- “12. In the instant case, it is borne out of facts that not only did the assessee fail to file complete details along with supporting evidence and explanation before the Assessing Officer in respect of issues raised in notice[s] u/s 142[1

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

5. Ld. PCIT also referred to Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act observing as under:- “12. In the instant case, it is borne out of facts that not only did the assessee fail to file complete details along with supporting evidence and explanation before the Assessing Officer in respect of issues raised in notice[s] u/s 142[1

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

5. Ld. PCIT also referred to Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act observing as under:- “12. In the instant case, it is borne out of facts that not only did the assessee fail to file complete details along with supporting evidence and explanation before the Assessing Officer in respect of issues raised in notice[s] u/s 142[1

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

5. Ld. PCIT also referred to Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act observing as under:- “12. In the instant case, it is borne out of facts that not only did the assessee fail to file complete details along with supporting evidence and explanation before the Assessing Officer in respect of issues raised in notice[s] u/s 142[1

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.

5. Feeling aggrieved from the order of AO, the assessee appealed before the ld. CIT(A). In the Form 35, the assessee challenged to the reopening of the case as per the Section 147/148 of the Act as well as on merit. Ld.CIT(A) fixed case for hearing and issued notice to the assessee but the assessee did not appear

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

1,43,10,424/- is disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) and added back to the income of the assessee. It is pertinent to menton here that the addition on same ground has been done in the case of assessee for A.Y. 2008-09 also. 5. Dissatisfied with the assessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

SONA GOLD AGROCHEM PVT LTD,PATNA vs. ADCIR, CPC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed”

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

5 A.Y. 2019-2020 Sona Gold Agrochem Pvt. Limited liability to deposit employee’s contribution on or before due date as prescribed u/s 36(1)(va) as a condition for deduction. 27. Contention -4 The later enactment must prevail over the earlier one. Accordingly, the application of rigour of section 36(1)(va) of the Act w.e.f

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

5 & 6 are allowed. The Grounds No. 1 to 3 relate with the initiation of proceedings u/s 153A of the I.T. Act. In the instant case search warrant was issued in the case of appellant which mentioned the name of the appellant. However, no actual search had been conducted for the reason being that appellant's premise was sealed

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

5 & 6 are allowed. The Grounds No. 1 to 3 relate with the initiation of proceedings u/s 153A of the I.T. Act. In the instant case search warrant was issued in the case of appellant which mentioned the name of the appellant. However, no actual search had been conducted for the reason being that appellant's premise was sealed