ITAT Patna Bench
3,036 judgments
ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs SHRI DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH, PATNA
the Ld. CIT(A), this penalty was deleted but, as has been pointed out by the Ld. AR, the impugned order is passed in the name of Dudheshwar Nath Singh, Sunil Bhawan, Punai Chak, Patna – 800023 (status of “individual”).
RAVI LOCHAN SINGH,PATNA vs ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PATNA
SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
ANIL PRASAD SINGH,JAMUI vs ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BEGUSARAI
Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member), Shri Sanjay Awasthi (Accountant Member)
M/S KUMAR PIYUSH CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD,NALANDA vs PR. CIT-1, PATNA
SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
PAWAN KUMAR,GAYA vs ITO-WARD 3(2), GAYA
Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy (Vice President)
SURYADEO PRASAD,SIWAN vs ITO WARD-2 (3), SIWAN
SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)
ARCHANA,PATNA vs ITO, WARD- 4 (1), PATNA
Shri SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), Shri RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)
DAYA SHANKAR SINGH,BETTIAH vs ITO, WD-1(5), BETTIAH, BETTIAH
Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy (Vice President)
WHALE BLUE HI TECH PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CZAR CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD),PATNA vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PATNA., PATNA
the Ld. CIT(A) also as there to the Ld. CIT(A) was constrained to pass an exparte order since the assessee did not respond to notices fixing the case for hearing.
BRIJENDRA KUMAR SINGH,KAIMUR vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GAYA
the Bench that the assessee may be allowed adjournment till the matter is finally settled. However, it is seen that as per the VSVS the assessee has to withdraw his appeals as per the scheme.
BRIJENDRA KUMAR SINGH,KAIMUR vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GAYA
the Bench that the assessee may be allowed adjournment till the matter is finally settled. However, it is seen that as per the VSVS the assessee has to withdraw his appeals as per the scheme.
BIHAR MEDICAL SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA
the Assessing Officer to the notices issued by him. It is seen that even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not make any worthwhile presentation except that written submissions were filed in which it was mentioned that compliance could not be made before the Ld. Assessing Officer because a number of staff were suffering from COVID and hence were not alert enough to make proper representation before the Revenue Authorities. However, going by the fact that even before the Ld. CIT(A) ther
BIHAR MEDICAL SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs DCIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA
the Assessing Officer to the notices issued by him. It is seen that even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not make any worthwhile presentation except that written submissions were filed in which it was mentioned that compliance could not be made before the Ld. Assessing Officer because a number of staff were suffering from COVID and hence were not alert enough to make proper representation before the Revenue Authorities. However, going by the fact that even before the Ld. CIT(A) ther
SAWITA SHAH,PURNIA vs ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNIA
SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)
GURUDWARA BAL LEELA MAINI SANGAT TRUST,PATNA vs DC/AC, EXEMPTION, PATNA
SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)
