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

57,285/-, allowed a credit of ₹11,03,32,756/- on account of bank contra entries, estimated the undisclosed turnover at ₹47,11,24,529/- and reduced the consequential addition to ₹2,53,93,612/- instead of ₹4,40,58,124/- made by the Ld. AO. He also deleted the additions of ₹3,52,82,071/- made under section

UTTAR BIHAR GRAMIN BANK,MUZAFFARPUR vs. DC/AC CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.186/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank……….....…..…………………....Appellant Sharma Complex, Ramna Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur, Bihar – 842002. [Pan: Aaaju0238J] Vs. Dc/Ac, Circle-2, Muzaffarpur.……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna ["Cit(A)"] For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring A Total Loss Of Rs.47,24,77,982. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory Manual Selection Criteria During The Financial Year 2017-18. Accordingly, Statutory Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Were Issued & Duly Served Upon The Assessee. In Response, The Assessee Appeared & Made Certain Submissions. However, The Assessing Officer Made The Following Additions/Disallowances: Rs.16,84,20,016: Provision For Npa.

57,75,179: Disallowed claim of interest. Rs.5,08,291: Disallowed expenditure under the head "Food & Beverages" to staff. Rs.28,17,546: Disallowed contribution towards Provident Fund under section

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]

57 taxmann.com 21 (All), the Hon’ble Court has held that the provisions of section 68 are not applicable where the sum is not even credited in the books of account during the year. Similarly the decision ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya of Mumbai Tribunal

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]

57 taxmann.com 21 (All), the Hon’ble Court has held that the provisions of section 68 are not applicable where the sum is not even credited in the books of account during the year. Similarly the decision ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya of Mumbai Tribunal

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]

57 taxmann.com 21 (All), the Hon’ble Court has held that the provisions of section 68 are not applicable where the sum is not even credited in the books of account during the year. Similarly the decision ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya of Mumbai Tribunal

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]

57 taxmann.com 21 (All), the Hon’ble Court has held that the provisions of section 68 are not applicable where the sum is not even credited in the books of account during the year. Similarly the decision ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya of Mumbai Tribunal

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]

57 taxmann.com 21 (All), the Hon’ble Court has held that the provisions of section 68 are not applicable where the sum is not even credited in the books of account during the year. Similarly the decision ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya of Mumbai Tribunal

KAYANAT WELFARE ASSOCIATION,PATNA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1,PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 228/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Kayanat Welfare Association,………..…………Appellant East Lohanipur, Sarswati Lane, Kadamkuan, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Aaaak8246K] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…..………………………...Respondent Exemption Ward-1, Patna, Bihar Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ajay Kr. Shukla, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 12, 2024 O R D E R

section 144 of the Act by disallowing the expenditure of Rs.38,51,539/- and assessed income at Rs.38,57,585/-. 3. On being

MUKUL ELECTRIC AND ELECTRONIC TRAINING INSTITUTE,MIRGANJ vs. ITO WARD-2(4), SIWAN

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 695/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Mukul Electric & Electronic Training Institute,………………………………………………….Appellant Mirganj, Gopalganj-841438, Bihar [Pan:Aafam8410J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….……...Respondent Ward-2(4), Siwan, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Income Tax Department, Delhi-110001 Appearances By: Shri Bandhu Gupta, A.R. Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 29, 2025 O R D E R

section 57 of the Income Tax Act of the amount towards various heads including cleaning and refreshment Tea and Samosa. The ld. Assessing Officer disallowed

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

57,79,99,272/- is allowed. An amount of Rs. 44,70,128/- has been disallowed considering the provision for food and beverage as such expenditure is not allowable because it is an provision and not the actual expenditure. The AR demonstrated before me that this is an actual expenditure and not the provision. The word 'provision' has been used

SURENDRA PRASAD BHARVE,SAMASTIPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (4), SAMASTIPUR

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

Bench: The Learned Cit(A). However, On Account Of Repeated Non-Appearance On Seven Consecutive Dates, The Learned Cit(A) Proceeded Ex Parte & Dismissed The Appeal, Thereby Sustaining The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

section 143(3) of the Act determining the total income at ₹60,57,150/– after making certain additions and disallowances

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.

disallowed the said amount on the ground that mere establishing the identity of the creditor or the transaction have been routed through banking channel is not enough to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. On appeal, the CIT(A) called for remand report from the Assessing officer and after considering the same confirmed the addition. However, the Tribunal

ARUN CONSTRUCTION,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAGALPUR

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

disallowance of Rs. 13,33,8051- as sustained by the Assessing Officer on account of salary and interest payable to the partner is arbitrary, unjustified, void ab-initio and bad in law. The addition as sustained is fit to be deleted. 4. For that the appellant reserves its right to file detailed submission at the time of hearing

ARUN CONSTRUCTION,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAGALPUR

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

disallowance of Rs. 13,33,8051- as sustained by the Assessing Officer on account of salary and interest payable to the partner is arbitrary, unjustified, void ab-initio and bad in law. The addition as sustained is fit to be deleted. 4. For that the appellant reserves its right to file detailed submission at the time of hearing

MAHENDRA PRASAD,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, ITD, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of Rs.62,906/ u/s 80C of the I.T. Act and Rs.72,094/- u/s 24(b) should not have been made as the evidences for claiming deduction are in possession of the appellant. 10. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant may kindly be given one more opportunity to justify the income

ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA vs. M/S SUN COMTECH PVT LTD, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

57 PM BUY 1 1158.40 250 289600.00 0 NICKEL FUTURES 16/03/2011 01:11:04 PM BUY 8 1184.70 250 2369400.00 0 NICKEL FUTURES 16/03/2011 01:10:37 PM SELL 2 1149.80 250 574900.00 0 NICKEL FUTURES 16/03/2011 01:10:50 PM SELL 8 1149.80 250 2299600.00 0 NICKEL FUTURES 16/03/2011 01:10:54 PM SELL

DEEPAK KUMAR,MUZAFFARPUR vs. CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

57,630 in the returned income. 10. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in rejecting the correct audit report without giving any reason and relying upon incorrect audit report, notwithstanding the fact that the auditor has accepted his mistakes and correct the inadvertent mistake in the original audit report. 11. For that the order

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