BLUECHIP ASSET PRIVATE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS BLUECHIP ADVISORY PVT. LTD,PATNA vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of sales promotion expenses to 75% of the amount claimed. The ground of appeal raised by the appellant is treated as partly allowed. 7. In the result the appeal is partly allowed.” 4. The Ld. AR drew our attention to para 6.3 of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order and also pages 18 to 22 of Form

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

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

Bench: the sale of immovable properties on which long term capital gain was derived.

disallowing deduction claimed under Section 54F of the Act for Rs. 3,02,11,651/- and three other additions were made as per section 143(1)(a) of the Act for Rs. 11,64,260/-, as per para 3.1.1, Rs. 1,75

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:

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 income of the trust, as explained in para

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 271(1)(b) of the Act was also filed. It was stated that the Ld. CIT(A) sustained part of the disallowance even though the assessee was not liable for deduction of any TDS as the assessee is trading in sugar and the liability for deduction did not arise as only if the aggregate payment of ₹ 75

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA, PATNA vs. SMT. SIPRA GUPTA, PATNA

disallowing deduction under section 80TTA\nat Rs.263 whereas in fact he has accepted the bank interest as income from other\nSources.\nFor that the charming of interest under section 234A is bad in law as original return as\nwell as return filed under section 148 is well within time. The consequential relief\nunder section 234B may be allowed in case

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

disallowance is warranted as the learned Assessing Officer did not record any reasons to doubt the genuineness of the expenses claimed. 7. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in this case the survey was conducted under Section 133A of the Act on the assessee on 04.01.2017. During the course of survey

ARANYA CLEARERS,GAYA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), GAYA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Ld. Assessing Officer has determined the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.61,50,860/-. He made three additions to the income of the assessee. The computation made at the end of the assessment order reads as under:- Total income as per return Rs.8,24,100/- Addition: (i)Contract receipt/fees Rs.7

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the additional legal ground raised for Assessment Years 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, are hereby dismissed. 8. Now we take up the grounds raised on the merits in the case of Dr. Sunita Kumari. 10. In ITA No. 18/Pat/2023 for AY 2014-15, assessee has challenged the finding

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the additional legal ground raised for Assessment Years 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, are hereby dismissed. 8. Now we take up the grounds raised on the merits in the case of Dr. Sunita Kumari. 10. In ITA No. 18/Pat/2023 for AY 2014-15, assessee has challenged the finding

UDAY SHANKAR ARUN,GAYA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the additional legal ground raised for Assessment Years 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, are hereby dismissed. 8. Now we take up the grounds raised on the merits in the case of Dr. Sunita Kumari. 10. In ITA No. 18/Pat/2023 for AY 2014-15, assessee has challenged the finding

UDAY SHANKAR ARUN,GAYA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the additional legal ground raised for Assessment Years 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, are hereby dismissed. 8. Now we take up the grounds raised on the merits in the case of Dr. Sunita Kumari. 10. In ITA No. 18/Pat/2023 for AY 2014-15, assessee has challenged the finding

UDAY SHANKAR ARUN,GAYA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the additional legal ground raised for Assessment Years 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, are hereby dismissed. 8. Now we take up the grounds raised on the merits in the case of Dr. Sunita Kumari. 10. In ITA No. 18/Pat/2023 for AY 2014-15, assessee has challenged the finding

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the additional legal ground raised for Assessment Years 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, are hereby dismissed. 8. Now we take up the grounds raised on the merits in the case of Dr. Sunita Kumari. 10. In ITA No. 18/Pat/2023 for AY 2014-15, assessee has challenged the finding

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the additional legal ground raised for Assessment Years 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, are hereby dismissed. 8. Now we take up the grounds raised on the merits in the case of Dr. Sunita Kumari. 10. In ITA No. 18/Pat/2023 for AY 2014-15, assessee has challenged the finding

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the additional legal ground raised for Assessment Years 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, are hereby dismissed. 8. Now we take up the grounds raised on the merits in the case of Dr. Sunita Kumari. 10. In ITA No. 18/Pat/2023 for AY 2014-15, assessee has challenged the finding

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the additional legal ground raised for Assessment Years 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, are hereby dismissed. 8. Now we take up the grounds raised on the merits in the case of Dr. Sunita Kumari. 10. In ITA No. 18/Pat/2023 for AY 2014-15, assessee has challenged the finding

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

section 153A of the Act. Therefore, the additional legal ground raised for Assessment Years 2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, are hereby dismissed. 8. Now we take up the grounds raised on the merits in the case of Dr. Sunita Kumari. 10. In ITA No. 18/Pat/2023 for AY 2014-15, assessee has challenged the finding

SRIRAM ENTERPRISES,BHAGALPUR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, PATNA, PATNA

75,320/- after\nmaking addition of ₹32,73,262/- and ₹10,00,479/- on the ground that\nthe parties from whom transactions had been made by the assessee\nwere found to be non-filers. Hence, these sums were disallowed out of\nthe claim of purchases and sub-contract expenses made by the\nassessee. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee