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

4 A.Y. 2019-2020 Sona Gold Agrochem Pvt. Limited c) Easland Combines, Coimbatore Vs. CCE, Coimbatore (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 410 d) Lumino Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2022) 94 ITR (Trib) 0675 (Kolkata) (2021) 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

UTTAR BIHAR GRAMIN BANK,MUZAFFARPUR vs. DC/AC CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.186/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank……….....…..…………………....Appellant Sharma Complex, Ramna Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur, Bihar – 842002. [Pan: Aaaju0238J] Vs. Dc/Ac, Circle-2, Muzaffarpur.……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna ["Cit(A)"] For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring A Total Loss Of Rs.47,24,77,982. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory Manual Selection Criteria During The Financial Year 2017-18. Accordingly, Statutory Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Were Issued & Duly Served Upon The Assessee. In Response, The Assessee Appeared & Made Certain Submissions. However, The Assessing Officer Made The Following Additions/Disallowances: Rs.16,84,20,016: Provision For Npa.

section 36(1)(va) as not deposited before the due date. After the above disallowances, the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.1,43,94,65,556. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, during the long pendency of the appeal almost five years the assessee failed to comply with the notices

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

section 36(1)(viia) does not make any distinction between PA or NPA. The provision is allowable to the extent of total allowable limit i.e. Rs. 311.52 crores. Since, only Rs. 57.80 crore has been allowed as provision for NPA, this claim of Rs. 1.74 crore should be further allowed. In this case of Delhi High Court has accepted

THE SIWAN CENTRAL CO.-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,SIWAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

4. Per contra, ld. D/R was fair enough not to oppose this request of the ld. Counsel for the assessee of restoring the issues to ld. AO for passing order afresh after considering the impact of Section 43D of the Act and the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. 5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed

THE SIWAN CENTRAL CO.-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,SIWAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

4. Per contra, ld. D/R was fair enough not to oppose this request of the ld. Counsel for the assessee of restoring the issues to ld. AO for passing order afresh after considering the impact of Section 43D of the Act and the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. 5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed

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

94,532/- as on 31.03.2016 is paper company. The assessee never produced clarification and documentary evidence even after repeated requests during the assessment proceedings. 6. That the order of the Ld.CIT(A) being erroneous in law and on facts to be vacated and the order of the A.O. be restored. 7. That the applicant craves leave to add, alter, delete

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

94,532/- as on 31.03.2016 is paper company. The assessee never produced clarification and documentary evidence even after repeated requests during the assessment proceedings. 6. That the order of the Ld.CIT(A) being erroneous in law and on facts to be vacated and the order of the A.O. be restored. 7. That the applicant craves leave to add, alter, delete

M/S GUPTESHWARAM RICE MILL PVT LTD,KAIMUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, GAYA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.199/Pat/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2003-04)

Section 68 unexplained unsecured loan addition of Rs. 4,69,886/- made in both the learned lower authorities’ respective orders that this taxpayer had failed to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the credit parties, we find no merit to sustain the same since the same has come from the assessee’s four directors namely Avinash Tiwary, Shashi Nath Tiwary

PARAS NATH GUPTA,RAMNA ROAD , GAYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DC/AC CIRCLE-I

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance of the expenses without any reason, is unjustified and unreasonable. 7. For that the learned A.O. has erred in making addition of Rs. 1,65,09,996/- on account of additional estimated income, which is unjustified and unreasonable and therefore the same may be deleted. 8. For that the learned A.O. has erred in calculating Net Profit

RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,BIROLI BAZAR vs. ITO WARD 3(1) PURNEA, PURNIA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.422/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rajendra Agrawal.……………….....…..…………………....Appellant New Sipahi Tola, Maranga Road, Bihar – 85301. [Pan: Aqhpa2439E] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Purnia....….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 18 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause Which Was Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Engaged In Farming Activities. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened

disallowed 25% of the claimed agricultural income of Rs.7,94,275/- i.e. Rs.1,98,569/- and added it back to the total income of the assessee by assessing total income of the assessee at Rs.2,43,160/-. 4. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order

SHRAWAN GOENKA,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.12/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shrawan Goenka........................................…...........................……….……Appellant C/O Nirmal & Associates, Chartered Accountants, Nepai Kothi, Opp. Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001. [Pan:Adcpg8792N] Vs. Acit, Circle-6, Patna.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 28, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 6 , 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Hazaribagh [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:

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - Hazaribagh erred in confirming ad hoc addition of 5% on expenses incurred under head miscellaneous expenses, power & fuel and travelling. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, rectify, modify or otherwise alter any ground of appeal.” 2. Ground No.1

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

4. For that the learned A.O. is not justified in invoking the provision of section 145(3) and rejecting the books of account, even in an ex-parte order. 5. For that the facts and circumstances of the case do not call for rejection of books of accounts and estimation of net profit both under trading and transport business

LAVANYA ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ITW WARD 2 (1) PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 342/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Lavanya Estates Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer, Kasim Colonydargah Road Ward 2(1), Mahendru, Sultanganj, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dakbanglow, Patna-800 001 Patna, Bihar-800 006 [Pan : Aadcl0333R] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

section 142( 1) of the Act in 'Limited Scrutiny ' cases shall remain confined only to the specific reasons/issues for which case has been picked up for scrutiny . Further, the scope of enquiry shall be restricted to the 'Limited Scrutiny ' issues. c. These cases shall be completed expeditiously in a limited number of hearings. d. During the course of assessment proceedings

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

94,200/- which is bad in fact and law of the case. 7. For that the appellant may not be treated as assessee in default in respect of the disputed demand including interest amounting to Rs.9,80,636/-. 8. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission along with evidences and documents on or before

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

94,200/- which is bad in fact and law of the case. 7. For that the appellant may not be treated as assessee in default in respect of the disputed demand including interest amounting to Rs.9,80,636/-. 8. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission along with evidences and documents on or before

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

94,200/- which is bad in fact and law of the case. 7. For that the appellant may not be treated as assessee in default in respect of the disputed demand including interest amounting to Rs.9,80,636/-. 8. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission along with evidences and documents on or before

ARUN CONSTRUCTION,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAGALPUR

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

94~/-, 234D at Rs. 3,02,3631- and 244A at Rs. 1,84,080/-. The charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234D and 244A is arbitrary and unjustified. The interest component as included in the demand notice is fit to be deleted. ITA No.314 to316/Pat/18 AY 2009-10 Arun Construction Page 4 4. For that the appellant reserves its right

ARUN CONSTRUCTION,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAGALPUR

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

94~/-, 234D at Rs. 3,02,3631- and 244A at Rs. 1,84,080/-. The charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234D and 244A is arbitrary and unjustified. The interest component as included in the demand notice is fit to be deleted. ITA No.314 to316/Pat/18 AY 2009-10 Arun Construction Page 4 4. For that the appellant reserves its right