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

53,430/-. The facts stated above in A.Y. 2016-17 are also common. The assessee has filed its return of income in 2017-18 also but on 21.12.2019. It has declared total income of Rs.12,43,02,386/-. 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

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

53,430/-. The facts stated above in A.Y. 2016-17 are also common. The assessee has filed its return of income in 2017-18 also but on 21.12.2019. It has declared total income of Rs.12,43,02,386/-. 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

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

53 ITR 225 , a three- judge Bench of this Court discussed the scope of section 31(3)(a ) of the 1922 Act, which 8 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 M/s. Kumar Construction is almost identical to section 251(1)(a) of the 1961 Act. The Court held as under: "...If an appeal lies, section 31 of the Act describes the powers

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) of the Act, Rule 2ABA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and after going through the remand report of the Ld. AO has given his findings as under: “I have gone through the submissions made by learned A/R of the appellant, the assessment order and the remand report. On the first issue of allowability of additional

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

53,228/- which is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has affirmed the order of Ld. AO and not allowing payment of rent of Rs. 6,60,000/- in respect of TDS on rent is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and circumstances

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

53,228/- which is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has affirmed the order of Ld. AO and not allowing payment of rent of Rs. 6,60,000/- in respect of TDS on rent is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and circumstances

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

53,228/- which is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. For that the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has affirmed the order of Ld. AO and not allowing payment of rent of Rs. 6,60,000/- in respect of TDS on rent is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and circumstances

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

section 40A(3) are not applicable. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna erred in not Including the Issue In the remand order Issued by him for examination of the undisclosed receipt from business of the assessee. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances

ITO, WARD-2(1), BEGUSARAI, BEGUSARAI vs. MANISH KUMAR MOTANI, KHAGARIA, BIHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and CO of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajjpm4263D Co No. 02/Pat/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 442/Pat/2024 For A.Y. 2017-18) Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri A.K. Rastogi, S.K. Duta, Ars Revenue By : Shri A.H. Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

53,95,910/- as against the return income of ₹34,62,020/- by making the two additions (i) ₹8,02,45,293/ - in respect of undisclosed sales and (ii) 16,88,598/-, in respect of disallowance computed at the rate of 10% on Freight & wages expenses, Miscellaneous expenses, travelling and conveyance expenses etc. 6. In the appellate proceedings, the learned

M/S KUMAR PIYUSH CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD,NALANDA vs. PR. CIT-1, PATNA

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

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

disallowance also.” 2.0. Aggrieved with the action of Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before us with the following grounds of appeal: 3 M/s Kumar Piyush Construction Private Limited “Ground number 1 Was not justified in initiating proceedings under Section 263 of the Act since the order under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 20 December

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. M/S ALKEM LABORATORIES LTD, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting relief to the assessee on account of adjustment made to book profit on account of Provisions for Doubtful debts/advance for A.V. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 under the provision of section 115JB of the Income

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]

Section 68 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) allowing

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]

Section 68 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) allowing

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]

Section 68 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) allowing

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]

Section 68 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) allowing

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]

Section 68 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) allowing

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 assessee are dismissed

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

53,29,48,286/- to the total income of the assessee during the year under consideration. - 3.2. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A), who deleted the addition after examining the order issued by CERC relating to these expenses submitted by the ld. Counsel of the assessee by recording a clearcut finding that the expenses were

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

53,29,48,286/- to the total income of the assessee during the year under consideration. 3.2. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A), who deleted the addition after examining the order issued by CERC relating to these expenses submitted by the ld. Counsel of the assessee by recording a clearcut finding that the expenses were

SHASHI KRISHNA EDUCATIONAL AVAM WELFARE SOCIETY,PATNA vs. AO, PATNA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 11 were duly complied with. 6. That the demand of Rs. 53,13,260/- is unjustified, arbitrary, and deserves to be quashed. 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an AOP and had filed