DCIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. INDIA CARRIERS PVT LTD, PATNA

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rajesh Kumar

56,279/- by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Patna [in short Ld. 'CIT(A)'] as disallowed and added by Ld. AO u/s 40A(3) of the Act. I.T.A. No.: 86/PAT/2020 Assessment Year: 2016-17 India Carriers Pvt. Ltd. 2. The facts in brief are that during the course of assessment proceedings, Ld. AO observed that the assessee has made

SIS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Act cannot be made on the ground that the appellant had failed to rectify the reporting error on ESI/PF Portal. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or vary, any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. The Ld. Counsel

MOHAMMAD SAIDULLAH,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (3), MOTIHARI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 56(2)(x) of the Act. As regards the disallowance made on account of expenses claimed on estimated basis

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

disallowance of expenditure at Rs.2,38,705/-. We observe that the assessee has declared professional income of Rs.21,90,890/-and after claiming the expenditure has shown that income at Rs.8,56,740/-. However, the Id. AO has applied the provisions of section

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

disallowance of expenditure at Rs.2,38,705/-. We observe that the assessee has declared professional income of Rs.21,90,890/-and after claiming the expenditure has shown that income at Rs.8,56,740/-. However, the Id. AO has applied the provisions of section

UDAY SHANKAR ARUN,GAYA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

disallowance of expenditure at Rs.2,38,705/-. We observe that the assessee has declared professional income of Rs.21,90,890/-and after claiming the expenditure has shown that income at Rs.8,56,740/-. However, the Id. AO has applied the provisions of section

UDAY SHANKAR ARUN,GAYA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

disallowance of expenditure at Rs.2,38,705/-. We observe that the assessee has declared professional income of Rs.21,90,890/-and after claiming the expenditure has shown that income at Rs.8,56,740/-. However, the Id. AO has applied the provisions of section

UDAY SHANKAR ARUN,GAYA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

disallowance of expenditure at Rs.2,38,705/-. We observe that the assessee has declared professional income of Rs.21,90,890/-and after claiming the expenditure has shown that income at Rs.8,56,740/-. However, the Id. AO has applied the provisions of section

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

disallowance of expenditure at Rs.2,38,705/-. We observe that the assessee has declared professional income of Rs.21,90,890/-and after claiming the expenditure has shown that income at Rs.8,56,740/-. However, the Id. AO has applied the provisions of section

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

disallowance of expenditure at Rs.2,38,705/-. We observe that the assessee has declared professional income of Rs.21,90,890/-and after claiming the expenditure has shown that income at Rs.8,56,740/-. However, the Id. AO has applied the provisions of section

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

disallowance of expenditure at Rs.2,38,705/-. We observe that the assessee has declared professional income of Rs.21,90,890/-and after claiming the expenditure has shown that income at Rs.8,56,740/-. However, the Id. AO has applied the provisions of section

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

disallowance of expenditure at Rs.2,38,705/-. We observe that the assessee has declared professional income of Rs.21,90,890/-and after claiming the expenditure has shown that income at Rs.8,56,740/-. However, the Id. AO has applied the provisions of section

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

disallowance of expenditure at Rs.2,38,705/-. We observe that the assessee has declared professional income of Rs.21,90,890/-and after claiming the expenditure has shown that income at Rs.8,56,740/-. However, the Id. AO has applied the provisions of section

ASHOK KUMAR,BHOJPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, ARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

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

disallowance of Rs.76,191/- @20% out of expenses claimed under various heads. (8) For that the sustenance of addition/disallowances of Rs.7,26,001/-, Rs. 10,56,328/-, Rs.32,71,379/-, Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.76.191/- by the Ld. CIT(A) are wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. (9) For that

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

56,88,25,36,571 is considered as non rural advance, 10% of the balance 20% of rural average advance is sufficient to take care of the claim to be allowed. I find force in the argument of learned AR and he has successfully demonstrated the allowability of additional claim u/s 36(1)(viia). Thus, the disallowance made under this

BLUECHIP ASSET PRIVATE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS BLUECHIP ADVISORY PVT. LTD,PATNA vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 37(3A) of Act which was proposed to be added to the income of the assessee after issuing a show cause notice with draft assessment order. Final assessment order was passed at the total income of Rs. 40,10,200/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has extracted

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

disallowance of Rs.6,23,78,655/- to closing stock stating that there are no defects found by the Assessing Officer in books of accounts submitted by the appellant. While as per records, the assessee did not submitted specific details as called for during assessment proceedings and hence AO did not get the opportunity to point out the defects in books

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.

56 ITR 250 (Mys), the High Court of Mysore was dealing with the case where the P a g e 14 | 71 Assessment Year : 2010 -2011 notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued in the names of the Assessee who were minors and not in the names of their guardians. The notices were served on a clerk