PUNAM HISARIA,SITAMARHI vs. DC/AC, CIRCLE-03, DARBH, DARBH

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.80/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Punam Hisaria ………. Appellant (Pan: Abupa3945R)

disallowed 30 percent of amount of Freight paid to the transporters who have given declaration for non-deduction of TDS in compliance of Section 194C(6

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

disallowed any amount u/s40A(3), out of income offered in the regular books of accounts, but arbitrarily, the out of books business entries, noted in the impounded materials were analyzed to invoke section 40A(3). 6

PUNRASAR JUTE PARK LIMITED,PURNEA vs. CIT, PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed the claim made under section 80-IA.” 15. Respectfully following the ratios laid down by the Hon’ble Courts referred hereinabove, we are inclined to hold that the notice under section 148 of the Act issued by the ld. Assessing Officer is illegal and invalid and, therefore, reopening proceedings carried out under section 147 of the Act are invalid

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL , PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

SANGAM ALMIRAH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUZAFFARPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

6. For that the learned CIT (A) has incorrectly observed that the appellant is making a story to cover up the failure to submit the requisite documentary evidence. The disallowance was suo-moto accepted by the appellant and as such the observation of learned CIT(A) is without any basis. 7. For that other grounds, if any, will be urged

BIHAR COMBINED ENTRANCE COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION BOARD,PATNA vs. ACIT(EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE), PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 10(23C)(vi) and, therefore, the income of the assessee stands exempted. 6. So far as the disallowance made

BIHAR COMBINED ENTRANCE COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION BOARD,PATNA vs. ACIT(EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE), PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 10(23C)(vi) and, therefore, the income of the assessee stands exempted. 6. So far as the disallowance made

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

section 194C or 194(I). To our mind, the ld. Assessing Officer has not demonstrated the actual defaults committed by the assessee and, therefore, under such circumstances, he cannot disallow under a general narration. We allow this ground of appeal and delete the disallowance. 14. In Grounds No. 6

BIJAY KUMAR SARAF,DALDALI BAZAR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. DC/AC CIRCLE 1,MUZFFARPUR, IT-OFFICE, POLICE LINE, SIKANDERPUR MUZZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 194C(6). All the compliance had been complied ITA No.: 205/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Bijay Kumar Saraf. by the appellant during the year under consideration as per the prevailing law during the said period. 11. For that the learned commissioner of income tax (Appeals) had failed to appreciate the fact that the payment made in respect

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. SINCON INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 133(6) of the Act, but only one party replied. Finally, the\nLearned AO treated the said purchases as unproved and\nunsubstantiated purchases and added the same to the income of the\nassessee.\n2.2. In the appellate proceedings, the Learned CIT (A) allowed the\nappeal of the assessee by observing that the assessee submitted all the\nevidences

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR vs. M/S UTTAR BIHAR GRAMIN BANK, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.A. No. 29/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur M/S Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank

Section 36(1)(viii). Since, the maximum limit allowable under this provision is Rs. 10,00,00,000/- against the available deduction of Rs. 14.54. crores, the deduction is hereby allowed to the extent of Rs. 10,00,00,000/-. The AO has restricted the deduction at Rs. 3,20,02,906/- and has disallowed Rs. 6

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

sections": [ "37", "139", "147", "148", "133(6)", "143(1)", "147/1448" ], "issues": "Whether the purchases made from M/s Divine Alloys & Power Co. Ltd. were bogus and thus disallowable

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.30,52,570/- on the account of expenses claimed in the profit and loss account for expenses made on account of corporate social responsibility (in short CSR) in Financial Year 2013-14 corresponding to Assessment Year 2014-15, notwithstanding the fact that the Explanation (2) of sub-Section (1) of Section 37 of the Act was inserted

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.30,52,570/- on the account of expenses claimed in the profit and loss account for expenses made on account of corporate social responsibility (in short CSR) in Financial Year 2013-14 corresponding to Assessment Year 2014-15, notwithstanding the fact that the Explanation (2) of sub-Section (1) of Section 37 of the Act was inserted