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

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

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

section 36(1)(va) from beginning being similar to that now held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC), the base of Checkmate's case is changed and disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) is not warranted upto asst. yr. 2020-21 even in case of belated deposit

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

67,25,641/- and disallowance of the provisional expenditure as per para 11 of the assessment order at ₹44,70,128/- were made and the total income was assessed at ₹176,92,74,630/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who considered in detail the provisions of section 36(1

J M D SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER , PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

disallowance of Rs. 1,27,67,220/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's appeal

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

1) of section 139, in the manner specified for furnishing such return of income. We find that coordinate bench in 42 Hertz Software India (P.) Ltd v. ACIT [2022] 139 taxmann.com 448 (Bangalore – Trib.) wherein following its earlier order in the case of Ms. Brinda Rama Krishna v.ITO [2022] 135 taxmann.com 358 (Bang – Trib) it was held that

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

KUMAR SAURABH,WEST BENGAL vs. ITO WARD 4 (1), PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.345/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20

1) of section 139 in the manner specified for furnishing such return of income. We find that coordinate bench in 42 Hertz Software India (P.) Ltd v. ACIT [2022] 139 taxmann.com 448 (Bangalore - Trib.) wherein following its Page 4 of 6 I.T.A. No. 345/Pat/2023 Kumar Saurabh, AY : 2019-20 earlier order in the case of Ms. Brinda Rama Krishna

KUMAR SUMAN SINGH,PATNA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

67,000/- was available on\naccount of payment to LIC/ULIP. Therefore, balance Rs. 33,000/-\n(1,00,000-67,000) was left for personal expenses spread over 12 month.\nMeaning thereby, that AO has accepted the personal expenses @2750/-\nper month (33,000/12).\nThe AO should have taken consistent view while computing addition on\naccount of low withdrawal

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

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

RAJESH SINGH,HAJIPUR vs. ADDL/JCIT, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz)

67,440/- and agriculture income of Rs.27,50,000/-. The assessee derives income from agriculture and house property. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Accordingly, notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee was asked to submit details of agriculture income, bank account statement

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) but failed to file statement in Form 26Q as required U/s 194C(7) of the Income Tax act, 1961. 2. Ground 2. For that CIT(A) could not consider the fact that all freight

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

section is not applicable, and the accounts are duly audited. 7. For that the addition of Rs.11,11,023/- on account of estimation of profit in wholesale trading business of kerosene oil is wholly unjustified, since the sale price is controlled and it is not correct to say that purchases are not verifiable. 8. For that the estimation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,PATNA, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 801A could not be audited as the assessee failed to claim the same while filing return u/s 139. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna failed to appreciate the fact that the auditor in his audit report did not confirmed eligibility of deduction u/s 80IA

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, PATNA, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 801A could not be audited as the assessee failed to claim the same while filing return u/s 139. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna failed to appreciate the fact that the auditor in his audit report did not confirmed eligibility of deduction u/s 80IA

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 801A could not be audited as the assessee failed to claim the same while filing return u/s 139. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna failed to appreciate the fact that the auditor in his audit report did not confirmed eligibility of deduction u/s 80IA