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

BIR BABU PANDEY,GOPALGANJ vs. ITO WARD 2(4), SIWAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

disallowance to the extent of 50% and granted\nrelief for ₹17,13,500/-. It was submitted that the cash book was\nproduced during the remand proceeding as well. As regards the balance\nof JVL Group being treated as undisclosed, the closing balance as\nPage 9\nI.T.A. No.: 223/PAT/2024\n Assessment Year: 2017-18\nBir Babu Pandey.\non31.03.2016 and the closing

RAVI LOCHAN SINGH,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

section 40(a)(ia) is attracted here also. Hence, It is my opinion that the assessee has claimed Rs. 18,91,877/- under the head of advertisement but he has not deducted TDS on the payments. Therefore, the AO proceeded to make disallowance of Rs. 18,91,877/- u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added

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

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

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 as under: ‘Explanation 2 – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of section 43B shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been

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

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

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 of net profit in transport business and addition

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

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\nview of the above directions

disallowance\nof the expenses without any reason, is unjustified and unreasonable.\n7. For that the learned A.O. has erred in making addition of Rs.\n1,65,09,996/- on account of additional estimated income, which is\nunjustified and unreasonable and therefore the same may be deleted.\n8. For that the learned A.O. has erred in calculating Net Profit

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)

7. The above Instruction shall be applicable from the date of its issue and would cover the cases selected under CASS 2015 which are pending scrutiny cases as well as cases selected/being selected under the CASS 2016.” 6.1 Earlier preceding instruction in this regard was 20/2015 which states as under:” “Instruction No. 20/2015 Government of India Ministry of Finance Department

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. RISHAV DUTTA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowance of Rs. 1 50,000/- claimed by the assessee u/s 80C of the I. T. Act:- 2 Rishav Dutta, AY: 2017-18 (a) by admitting fresh evidences/documents such as paper book containing books of account and other documents produced before him without providing reasonable opportunity to the A.O. to examine such evidences in violation of Rule