ITAT Patna Bench
3,036 judgments
MOHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN,PATNA vs ITO, WARD-5(2), PATNA
SRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
MOHAMMAD ALI IMAM,PATNA vs ITO, WARD-5(2), PATNA, PATNA
SRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
GANPATI CONSTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SUPAUL vs CIT (APPEAL), BHAGALPUR
SRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
ADITYA CERAMICS,PATNA vs DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA, PATNA
SRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
NANDLAL,PATNA vs ITO, PATNA
SRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
DIPAK KUMAR SINGH & SONS HUF,PATNA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2), PATNA
the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the delay was on account of ignorance of law and the assessee was alerted for filing the appeal only when they received a notice proposing levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the issue of delayed filing with the help of several authorities on the subject and has declined to condone the said delay due to which the appeal was dismissed. 3.1 Further aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is
MAHADEV OJHA,CHHAPRA vs CIT(APPEALS), NEW DELHI
RANJEET PRASAD,PATNA vs ITO WARD 6(5), PATNA
SRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
SHRI BHUDHARMAL DHANDHANIA,BHAGALPUR vs CIT (EXEMPTION), PATNA
SRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
BIHAR STATE HYDROELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs ITO, WARD-2 (2), PATNA
the Ld. AO in justification of this claim. Before the Ld. CIT(A) also, it is mentioned in para 9.2 at page 10, that the assessee did not submit any document or explanation inspite of several opportunities granted. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the impugned addition. 2. Before us, on the last date of hearing, none attended and thereafter the case was taken up for hearing with the help of Ld. DR. The Ld. DR pointed out that in this case, the addition was justified since neither of the
MUNNA KUMAR,SIWAN vs ITO, WARD-2(3), PATNA
SRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
PINKU KUMAR SAH,ARARIA vs ITO, WARD-3(3), PURNIA
SRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), PATNA vs AMIT KUMAR SINGH, PATNA
us, the Ld. DR has submitted that in the remand report the Ld. AO had mentioned that the contractual receipts shown were not matching with the details of receipts available in Form 26AS. The Ld. DR assailed the action of Ld. CIT(A) in distinguishing between“caretaker services” and “civil services”, even when the audit report in Form 3CD 2
RAJESHWAR PRASAD,PATNA vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA
SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
RAJESHWAR PRASAD,PATNA vs ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA
SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), PATNA vs MUNNI RAI, PATNA
SHRI SOJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
INFINITY KUMAR,PATNA vs ITO , PATNA
SRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
MANISH KUMAR,,PATNA vs DC/AC, CIR-4, PATNA, PATNA
SRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
MEERA DEVI,PATNA vs ITO WARD 6(3) , PATNA
SRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
KUMAR SAURAV,PATNA vs ITO WARD 6(3), PATNA
SRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
