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.56,58,27,946/- on the account of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act due to interest income from Fixed Deposit, Saving Account and other income. 12. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” IV. ITA No. 333/PAT/2024; AY 2014-15: “1. For that the grounds of appeal

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.56,58,27,946/- on the account of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act due to interest income from Fixed Deposit, Saving Account and other income. 12. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” IV. ITA No. 333/PAT/2024; AY 2014-15: “1. For that the grounds of appeal

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.56,58,27,946/- on the account of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act due to interest income from Fixed Deposit, Saving Account and other income. 12. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” IV. ITA No. 333/PAT/2024; AY 2014-15: “1. For that the grounds of appeal

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.56,58,27,946/- on the account of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act due to interest income from Fixed Deposit, Saving Account and other income. 12. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” IV. ITA No. 333/PAT/2024; AY 2014-15: “1. For that the grounds of appeal

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.56,58,27,946/- on the account of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act due to interest income from Fixed Deposit, Saving Account and other income. 12. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” IV. ITA No. 333/PAT/2024; AY 2014-15: “1. For that the grounds of appeal

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

section 40A(3). However, the appellant has not disclosed this sum in the return of income. On the basis of impounded material SSY-1, the AO worked out unaccounted purchase payments for masoor and masoor dal beyond Rs. 20000/- in cash at Rs. 5.45.53,743/- and on the basis of impounded document SSY-4 such disallowance in respect of Matar/Matar

SEEMA SRIVASTAVA,PATNA vs. ITO,DC/AC-6, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 144 in last para of the assessment order appears to be an inadvertent mistake which needs to be ignored. Therefore, this ground is dismissed. 6.1 Ground Nos. 2 & 3 pertain to addition of Rs. 2,58,34,383/- as long term capital gain by disallowing

VIJAYA SINGH,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1), PATNA, PATNA, BIHAR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 519/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Vijaya Singh,…………………………...….………Appellant M-55/22A, S.K. Nagar, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Asups6086N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………......Respondent Ward-6(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Jay Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-800001, Bihar

58,760/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee declared agricultural income at Rs.39,45,200/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 22.09.2019 and served upon the assessee within statutory period. The case was transferred

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.

58 (Punj.) and RoshanLal& Co. v. CIT [1966162 ITR72(Puni). 2.14 In view of the aforesaid, it is being held that on the given facts and circumstances of the case, the AO has validly and legally assumed jurisdiction under section 148 of the Act on the basis of reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

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

58,260/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued which were duly served upon the assessee. The assessee had shown agricultural income of ₹1,23,255/- which was added by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') to the returned income of the assessee

THE MUZAFFARPUR CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Mainsh Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

section 32(2) of the Income Act, 1961. 14. For that the profit & loss account of the appellant reflects credit of Rs. 3,79,54,752/- on account of provisions written back and this has resulted the net profit of Rs. 4,59,13,720/-. The assessment should have been framed after taking net profit of Rs. 79,58

SANOJ KUMAR SINGH ,HAJIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3) , VAISHALI

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer computed the disallowance merely on an estimation basis, the As- sessing Officer noted that total turnover/sales of the assessee during the year were Rs. 5,07,59,673/- out of which the assessee has deposited cash to the tune

RAINBOW ESTATES P LTD,BANDAR BACHICHA vs. CPC, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

58,970/-. The return was processed u/s.143(1) on 24 08.2022 accepting the returned income as such. However, the appellant contends that while computing the tax liability thereon, CPC did not allow the sum of Rs.87.161/- being carry forward MAT credit. Hence, the present appeal. 4.2. Perusal of the return of income filed by the appellant shows that in "Part

KOSHLESH VARIJ LOCHAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO WARD- 1 (1), MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed”

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

58,41,044 (in Indian Currency Rs.14,64,069/-) as foreign allowance while working at Budapest, Hungary and tax at source was deducted as per the Income Tax Laws of the Hungarian Government @ 15% i.e. HUF 8,76,157 (INR Rs.2,19,610). It is not in dispute that the assessee has worked outside India being resident his world income

M/S GUPTESHWARAM RICE MILL PVT LTD,KAIMUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, GAYA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.199/Pat/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2003-04)

Section 68 unexplained unsecured loan addition of Rs. 4,69,886/- made in both the learned lower authorities’ respective orders that this taxpayer had failed to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the credit parties, we find no merit to sustain the same since the same has come from the assessee’s four directors namely Avinash Tiwary, Shashi Nath Tiwary

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. RISHAV DUTTA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowance of Rs. 1 50,000/- claimed by the assessee u/s 80C of the I. T. Act:- 2 Rishav Dutta, AY: 2017-18 (a) by admitting fresh evidences/documents such as paper book containing books of account and other documents produced before him without providing reasonable opportunity to the A.O. to examine such evidences in violation of Rule

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

58:50 PM SELL 10 113.20 5000 5660000.00 2 ZINC FUTURES 21/03/201103:59:16 PM SELL 11 113.20 5000 6226000.00 13 ZINC FUTURES 21/03/2011 03:59:55 PM SELL 5 113.20 5000 2830000.00 1 ZINC FUTURES 21/03/201104:00:15 PM SELL 5 113.20 5000 2830000.00 1 ZINC FUTURES 21/03/201104:01:03 PM SELL 5 113.20 5000 2830000.00 1 ZINC FUTURES