BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN.LTD.,PATNA vs. CIT (APPEAL), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

b) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Steel Authority of India Ltd reported in [2023] 148 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi) [06-01-2023], wherein it has been held that - "Explanation 2 appended to section 37(1) by Finance Act, 2014 with effect from 1-4-2015 is applicable prospectively from assessment year 2015-16; therefore, corporate social responsibility expenditure incurred

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

b) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Steel Authority of India Ltd reported in [2023] 148 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi) [06-01-2023], wherein it has been held that - "Explanation 2 appended to section 37(1) by Finance Act, 2014 with effect from 1-4-2015 is applicable prospectively from assessment year 2015-16; therefore, corporate social responsibility expenditure incurred

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

b) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Steel Authority of India Ltd reported in [2023] 148 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi) [06-01-2023], wherein it has been held that - "Explanation 2 appended to section 37(1) by Finance Act, 2014 with effect from 1-4-2015 is applicable prospectively from assessment year 2015-16; therefore, corporate social responsibility expenditure incurred

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

b) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Steel Authority of India Ltd reported in [2023] 148 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi) [06-01-2023], wherein it has been held that - "Explanation 2 appended to section 37(1) by Finance Act, 2014 with effect from 1-4-2015 is applicable prospectively from assessment year 2015-16; therefore, corporate social responsibility expenditure incurred

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

b) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Steel Authority of India Ltd reported in [2023] 148 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi) [06-01-2023], wherein it has been held that - "Explanation 2 appended to section 37(1) by Finance Act, 2014 with effect from 1-4-2015 is applicable prospectively from assessment year 2015-16; therefore, corporate social responsibility expenditure incurred

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

b) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Steel Authority of India Ltd reported in [2023] 148 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi) [06-01-2023], wherein it has been held that - "Explanation 2 appended to section 37(1) by Finance Act, 2014 with effect from 1-4-2015 is applicable prospectively from assessment year 2015-16; therefore, corporate social responsibility expenditure incurred

JCIT(IN-SITU), CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. TECHNOCULTURE BUILDING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes\nand Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

disallowance of the deduction, even if the payment was made before the due date\nfor filing the ROI. We need to remind ourselves that this is exactly the case in the present\nappeal. The judgment reinforced the distinction between employer and employee\ncontributions. While an employer's contributions could be governed by section 43B of the\nAct, employees' contributions

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

7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee firstly made reference to the paper book containing 623 pages, which contains the notice under section 142(1) of the Act issued by the ld. Assessing Officer for the impugned assessment years from 2017-18 to 2021-22 under appeals, various replies Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited given

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

7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee firstly made reference to the paper book containing 623 pages, which contains the notice under section 142(1) of the Act issued by the ld. Assessing Officer for the impugned assessment years from 2017-18 to 2021-22 under appeals, various replies Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited given

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

7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee firstly made reference to the paper book containing 623 pages, which contains the notice under section 142(1) of the Act issued by the ld. Assessing Officer for the impugned assessment years from 2017-18 to 2021-22 under appeals, various replies Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited given

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

7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee firstly made reference to the paper book containing 623 pages, which contains the notice under section 142(1) of the Act issued by the ld. Assessing Officer for the impugned assessment years from 2017-18 to 2021-22 under appeals, various replies Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited given

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

7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee firstly made reference to the paper book containing 623 pages, which contains the notice under section 142(1) of the Act issued by the ld. Assessing Officer for the impugned assessment years from 2017-18 to 2021-22 under appeals, various replies Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited given

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:

b) of sub-section (1) of section 11 that 75% of the income of the trust should be spent during the year and only 25% can be accumulated for application to its purposes in future could not have been made applicable to corpus donations, the Amending Act, 1989 has further amended section 11 to exclude corpus donations from the total

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

7 Punrasar Jute Park Limited assessment. In this context, the question of "full and true disclosure of material facts" assumes importance. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact as borne from record that the original assessment in the case of the assessee was framed by the A.O u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 27/12/2017. Notice u/s.148

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

7 to relate with noncredit of TDS, TCS and self- assessment tax. Ground No. 10-General in nature. During the course of appellate proceedings appellant raised additional ground which is as under: - “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- on the basis of seized

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

7 to relate with noncredit of TDS, TCS and self- assessment tax. Ground No. 10-General in nature. During the course of appellate proceedings appellant raised additional ground which is as under: - “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- on the basis of seized

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

b) Ramkrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala 1988 SCC OnLine Ker 490 c) Jangali Singh Vs. The Sub-Divisional Officer and Another 1977 SCC OnLine All 181 d) Mathew Antony Vs. State of Kerala 1991 SCC OnLine Ker 361 e) Jwala Prasad Vs. Pargana Adhikari 1993 SCC OnLine All 714 28. I have considered the above contention raised

I.T.O. vs. M/S KUMAR CONSTRUCLTION,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of the notices at the end of the assessee. Ultimately the ld. Assessing Officer gone through the books of account submitted before her and made these two additions by recording the following finding:- “Addition u/s 40A(3) for payments exceeding Rs.20,000/- through bearer cheques:- On perusal of Books

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

7. For that other grounds, if any, will be urged at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return of income showing total income of ₹18,95,910/- and the assessment was made on the total income of ₹22,76,000/- i.e. after making an addition