PAVAN KUMAR BHAGAT,SAHARSA vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), SAHARSA, SAHARA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowing and adding Rs.11,65,739 claimed as commission expenses by the appellant, solely on the ground that the said deduction is not allowable in view of violation of provision of section 194G of the Act and section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, without considering the fact that the commission have been paid genuinely and through banking mode

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

89 taxmann.com 44/169 ITD 35 (Mumbai- Trib) In all above case laws, it was held that in order to issue notice u/s 153A of the A there must be initiation of search and mere search authorization could not be sufficient. Further, in the case of PCIT(Central), New Delhi Vs Meeta Gutgutia [201 96 Taxmann.com 468 [SC] it was held

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

89 taxmann.com 44/169 ITD 35 (Mumbai- Trib) In all above case laws, it was held that in order to issue notice u/s 153A of the A there must be initiation of search and mere search authorization could not be sufficient. Further, in the case of PCIT(Central), New Delhi Vs Meeta Gutgutia [201 96 Taxmann.com 468 [SC] it was held

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.

89 (Pat.) held that the words 'reason to believe' do not mean 'reason to suspect'. Section 147 does not give unfettered discretion to the income-tax authorities. The belief entertained by the authorities must not be arbitrary or irrational. It must be reasonable or, in other words, it must be based on reasons which are relevant and material—Ganga Saran

RANI DEVI,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

89,943/- (i.e. 8% of Rs.4,48,74,289/- ) and the difference of income as determined under section 44AD and net profit shown by the assessee, which comes to Rs.28,91,375/- was added to the total income of the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer disallowed

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

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 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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA, PATNA vs. RADHA MOHAN ROY, PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna Radha Mohan Roy, 6Th Floor, Room No.602 Mohan Nivas At Chopra Bazar, Central Revenue Building Ramnagar, Farshi Banmanki, Vs. (Annexe), Beer Chand Patel Purnea, Bihari-854102 Marg, Patna, Bihar-800001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Buzpr3181H Co No. 03/Pat/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 264/Pat/2025 For A.Y. 2019-20) Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna Radha Mohan Roy, 6Th Floor, Room No.602 Mohan Nivas At Chopra Bazar, Central Revenue Building Ramnagar, Farshi Banmanki, Vs. (Annexe), Beer Chand Patel Purnea, Bihari-854102 Marg, Patna, Bihar-800001 (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri A.K. Rastogi, Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Md. Ah Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am:

89,409/-, ₹21,16,645/- and ₹1,80,000/- by the learned CIT (A) as made by the learned Assessing Officer in respect of power & fuel and handling labour charges, business promotion expenses and godown rent. 4. The learned AO made the disallowance at the rate of 20% in respect of power fuel and handling charges. Similarly, the learned

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

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed and profit arises from one another broker has been ignored. The amounts to making an addition on the basis of conjecture and does not appear to be maintainable in my opinion. In view of the above, the addition of Rs.1,04,90,377/- made by the A.O. is therefore deleted.” 6. Rival contentions were heard and the details were

SUNYNA KUMAR GUPTA,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 90/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sunyna Kumari Gupta, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Prop: M/S Sona Drug Agency, Tax, Circle-4, Road No. 1, Lohanipur, Rajendra Patna Nagar, Patna-800016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpg6521C Assessee By : Sh. K. N. Prasad, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Abhay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement :16 .03.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.02.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Patna.

89,985.45, @ 6% machine & maintenance charges of Rs.17,09,400/- is allowed and the balance amount of Rs.11,70,600/- (Rs.28,80,000 – Rs.17,09,400) is treated as contingent liability.” 8. The AO made the addition of the aforesaid amount to the income of the assessee. The reliance was placed on the following case laws:  Shree Sajjan Mills

GYASUDDIN MOHAMMAD ANSARI,PURNIA vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (3), PURNEA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 80 E had been wrongly claimed. In fact, the assessee had sold a commercial is of land and furnish the working of capital loss of ₹ 240,000 and relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of gets a (India) Ltd vs CIT. The AO did not accept the contention of the assessee as according

SAMASTIPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, DARBHANGA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. 3.2. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT (A) confirmed the order of the learned AO. 3.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee is carrying on the banking business under the banking regulation Act 1949 and under Regional Rural Banks