PRASHANT PACKAGING PVT.LTD,PATNA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIR-2, PATNA, PATNA

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

disallowance could be made under section 40A(3) Held, yes [Para 23] [In favour of the assessee]\"\nCIT vs Smt. Shelly Passi reported in (2013) 350 ITR 227 (P&H)\nIn this case the court upheld the view of the tribunal in not applying section 40A(3) of the Act to the cash payments when ultimately, such amounts were deposited

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

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

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

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, 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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing the purchases, the corresponding sales made by the assessee were not disbelieved by the\nlearned AO nor by the learned CIT (A). We observe from the page\nno.39 of the paper book that the assessee is a public limited company\nand was under liquidation and has paid up capital of ₹130.14 crores.\nWe also find that from the perusal

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

BIR BABU PANDEY,GOPALGANJ vs. ITO WARD 2(4), SIWAN

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

57,847.35 2,34,124.27Dr\nJVL\nRice\n18,89,393.330 18,89,393.33\nNil\nNil\nTransfer to\nJVL\nGroup\nCompany\nJVL Group Of\nNil\nNil\n18,89,393.33 18,89,393.330\nCompanies\nPage 8\nI.T.A. No.: 223/PAT/2024\n Assessment Year: 2017-18\nBir Babu Pandey.\nJVL Agro\n13,25,625.000 53,01,241.00\nIndustries

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

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\nassessee are dismissed

disallowance of ₹72,67,00,000/-\nby the learned CIT (A) as made by the Id. AO on account of\ndelayed payment surcharge by the consumers.\n4.1. The learned AO during the assessment proceeding noted\nfrom the documents/evidences furnished by assessee that\nassessee had followed mercantile/ accrual system of\naccounting and with regard to delayed payment of surcharge

JCIT(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\nassessee are dismissed

disallowance of ₹72,67,00,000/-\nby the learned CIT (A) as made by the Id. AO on account of\ndelayed payment surcharge by the consumers.\n4.1. The learned AO during the assessment proceeding noted\nfrom the documents/evidences furnished by assessee that\nassessee had followed mercantile/ accrual system of\naccounting and with regard to delayed payment of surcharge

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