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]

section 54F & 54EC of the Act is hereby deleted. As regards the addition on account of disallowance of claim of loan liability to the tune of Rs. 34,00,000/- On perusal of assessment order, it is observed that after availing several opportunities the appellant has not provided the reason why the name of M/s Rohit ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021

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]

section 54F & 54EC of the Act is hereby deleted. As regards the addition on account of disallowance of claim of loan liability to the tune of Rs. 34,00,000/- On perusal of assessment order, it is observed that after availing several opportunities the appellant has not provided the reason why the name of M/s Rohit ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021

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]

section 54F & 54EC of the Act is hereby deleted. As regards the addition on account of disallowance of claim of loan liability to the tune of Rs. 34,00,000/- On perusal of assessment order, it is observed that after availing several opportunities the appellant has not provided the reason why the name of M/s Rohit ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021

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]

section 54F & 54EC of the Act is hereby deleted. As regards the addition on account of disallowance of claim of loan liability to the tune of Rs. 34,00,000/- On perusal of assessment order, it is observed that after availing several opportunities the appellant has not provided the reason why the name of M/s Rohit ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021

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]

section 54F & 54EC of the Act is hereby deleted. As regards the addition on account of disallowance of claim of loan liability to the tune of Rs. 34,00,000/- On perusal of assessment order, it is observed that after availing several opportunities the appellant has not provided the reason why the name of M/s Rohit ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021

AKSHAY EDUCATIONAL & SOCIAL WELFARE CHARITABLE TRUST,BODHGAYA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, GAYA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.03/Pat/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Akshay Educational & Social Welfare Charitable Trust............……….……Appellant Amawa (Thakar), Bodhgaya-824234. [Pan:Aacta5613R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-3, Gaya….....………............…............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Adv. & Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 11, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.08.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

disallowance @ 20% amounting to Rs.89,598/- out of expenditure incurred under the head food & beverages. 9. For that the addition/disallowance sustained are wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant case. 10. For that the whole order is bad in fact and law of the case and is fit to be modified

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

SONA GOLD AGROCHEM PVT LTD,PATNA vs. ADCIR, CPC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed”

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

63 CCH 0510 Kol.Trib 24. The Parliament, by way of amendment of 2021, has inserted Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) which reads as under: ‘Explanation 2 – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied for the purposes of determining

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.

63,50,000/- and Rs. 1,01,50,000/- respectively totaling Rs. 3,65,00,000/- is treated as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 and accordingly added to the total income of the assessee. From the above observations, the AO treated the entire share capital money received of Rs.3,65,00,000/- as unexplained

GANESH KUMAR KHEMKA,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 4(3), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.237/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ganesh Kumar Khemka..…………………...........................……….……Appellant B/46, Saraswati Apartment, S.P. Verma Road, Patna, Bihar – 800001. [Pan: Agwpk1726D] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Patna…....……...…………………………………....…..Respondent

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and disallowed this amount. The second addition amounting to Rs.3,55,95,280/- has been made on account of addition to the capital account of partnership concerns (M/s Gajmukh Trading and M/s Bhawani Enterprises). It is recorded that the assessee could not explain these additions to the capital account and hence all these

MAHUA COOPERATIVE COLD STORAGE LTD, MAHUA,VAISHALI vs. ADIT,CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowing the interest payable to NCDC of Rs. 80,80,225 and 63,24,116 u/s 43B of the I.T. Act. 3) For that to decide that NCDC is a Public Financial Institution, the website of NCDC was analysed and on the basis of the activities listed, it has been presumed that it is a Public Financial Institution, whereas

MITHILESH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (3), SAMASTIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.427/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mithilesh Prasad…………….………………. …………………....Appellant S/O Ram Bhakta Baitha, Damodarpur, Muzaffarpur, Bihar-842001. [Pan: Ankpp5641D] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3), Samastipur…....……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 08, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 12, 2026 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.08.2025 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Dealer Of M/S Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Ioc) & Derives Income From The Sale Of Lpg Cylinders. For The Assessment Year 2017–18, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of ₹6,04,460. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Made Various

disallowance of expenses claimed in the Profit & Loss Account amounting to ₹617878/- 3. Cash deposits of ₹63,29,000 during the demonetisation period, out of which 10%, i.e., ₹6,32,900, was added under section

S.RANJAN & BROTHERS,MUZAFFARPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Ranjan & Brothers Dcit, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur Puja Bazar, Motijheel, Muzaffarpur- Vs 842001. Pan: Aaofs 8056 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.05.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.08.2021 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

63 taxman. 289 where Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that genuineness of payment is not disbelieve the disallowance u/s 40A(3) cannot be made. Moreover, the alleged payments for the materials purchased were capitalize and depreciation was claimed on capital assets purchased by the assessee. Therefore, the application of section

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

disallowance of Rs. 6,79,97,094/- ignoring the facts that KCC limit is reduced however the order for ascertaining the new CC limit in case of borrower making it a clear-cut case of short term loan/ advance. 5. Contrary to that the Ld. A.R supports the impugned order by submitting that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed

SHEKHAR NARAYAN,PATNA vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowing expenses of Rs.732030/-. The appellant is working as a faculty in M/s. Mentors Eduserv at Patna. The search and seizure action was conducted in M/s Mentors Eduserv group at Patna. During the search, it was found that the faculty members are receiving salary but claiming expenses against the salary, which is not allowable. The AO has relied upon Section

SHEKHAR NARAYAN,PATNA vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowing expenses of Rs.732030/-. The appellant is working as a faculty in M/s. Mentors Eduserv at Patna. The search and seizure action was conducted in M/s Mentors Eduserv group at Patna. During the search, it was found that the faculty members are receiving salary but claiming expenses against the salary, which is not allowable. The AO has relied upon Section

DCIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, PATNA vs. M/S DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

63,86,667.00 (iv) Pharmacy receipts – Rs. 35,09,829.00 (v) Other receipts – Rs. 12,24,776.25 Furthermore, the Ld. AO found that the receipts from pharmacy exceeded the tolerance limit of 20% as per the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. It is seen that there is also a supporting finding that considerable expenses have been claimed

DCIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, PATNA vs. M/S DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

63,86,667.00 (iv) Pharmacy receipts – Rs. 35,09,829.00 (v) Other receipts – Rs. 12,24,776.25 Furthermore, the Ld. AO found that the receipts from pharmacy exceeded the tolerance limit of 20% as per the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. It is seen that there is also a supporting finding that considerable expenses have been claimed