Showing 40 of 90 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
- Ajay Kumar Maitin, Patna vs ACIT, Circle-4(1), Patna
ITA 56/PAT/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed24 Nov 2020AY 2015-16
- The Sub-Registrar, Kahalgaon vs Director General of Income Tax(I&C.I), Patna
ITA 317/PAT/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed24 Nov 2020AY 2015-16
- Suresh Kumar, Patna vs A.O., Ward-6(1), Patna
ITA 168/PAT/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2013-14Remanded
The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) was not permissible in law. The matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
- Ashok Kumar, East Champaran vs ITO, Ward-1(3), Motihari
ITA 121/PAT/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2011-12Dismissed
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel wished to withdraw the appeal as the AO had granted relief. The Revenue had no objection to this withdrawal.
- M/S Nandani Developers Pvt Ltd, Patna vs ITO, Ward-2(2), Patna
ITA 58/PAT/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2014-15Remanded
The tribunal set aside the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was also directed to refer the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer as per a High Court judgment.
- Manoj Kumar Singh, Madhubani vs ITO, Ward- Madhubani, Madhubani
ITA 188/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2010-11Remanded
The ITAT found that the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) was not permissible in law as it violated principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
- Sujeet Kumar, Patna vs ITO, Ward-6(1), Patna
ITA 206/PAT/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2013-14Remanded
The ITAT found that the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) was not permissible in law and violated principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
- Sri Khurshid Ahmad, Patna vs DCIT, Circle-4, Patna
ITA 80/PAT/2019[2008-09]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2008-09Dismissed
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with a condition. The appeal would be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' is not approved.
- Sushil Kumar Kedia, Gopalganj vs ITO, Ward-2(4), Siwan
ITA 126/PAT/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2011-12Remanded
The ITAT set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to resubmit the appeal electronically, and any delay was to be condoned.
- Ravi Kumar Ranjan, Katihar vs ITO, Ward, Katihar
ITA 184/PAT/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2014-15Dismissed
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. However, it was stipulated that the appeal would be restored if the assessee's application under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme' is not approved by the authorities.
- Hasina Khatoon, Patna vs ITO, Ward-4(4), Patna
ITA 223/PAT/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2015-16Remanded
The Tribunal held that an ex-parte dismissal for non-prosecution is not permissible in law. The principles of natural justice were violated as the appeal was not disposed of on merits.
- Rakesh Kumar(HUF), Patna vs ITO, Ward-5(1), Patna
ITA 175/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2020AY 2010-11Remanded
The tribunal found a violation of natural justice as the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issue on merits. Dismissal for non-prosecution was deemed impermissible. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication.
- Vinayak Agro Farming & Products (P) Ltd… vs A.O., Ward-2(2), Patna
ITA 245/PAT/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2020AY 2014-15
- Nishant Lall, New Delhi vs ITO, Ward-2(2), Patna
ITA 305/PAT/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2020AY 2015-16
- Jagat Narayan Nayak, Darbhanga vs DCIT, Circle-3, Darbhanga
ITA 57/PAT/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2020AY 2014-15
- Durga Shankar, Muzaffarpur vs ITO, Ward-1(1), Muzaffarpur
ITA 60/PAT/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2020AY 2013-14
- Vinayak Agro Farming & Products (P) Ltd… vs A.O., Ward-2(2), Patna
ITA 244/PAT/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2020AY 2014-15
- Sachin Yadav, Patna vs ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna
ITA 202/PAT/2019[2005-06]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2020AY 2005-06
- Rajesh Kumar, Gopalganj vs ITO, Ward, Siwan
ITA 208/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2020AY 2010-11
- Smt Shakuntala Pd, Sonepur vs ITO, Ward-2(2), Chapra
ITA 213/PAT/2019[2009-10]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2020AY 2009-10
- Ginni Devi Pransukha, Madhepura vs ITO, Ward-3(5), Saharsa
ITA 225/PAT/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2020AY 2015-16
- ITO, Ward-2(2), Patna vs M/S Tekriwal Paints and Chemicals Pvt Ltd…
ITA 227/PAT/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2020AY 2011-12
- ACIT, Circle-1, Patna vs Amit Kumar Banka, Patna
ITA 241/PAT/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2020AY 2014-15Dismissed
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn, subject to the condition that if the assessee's application under the "Vivaad Se Vishwas Scheme" is not accepted, the appeal would be revived.
- M/S Manish Kumar, Patna vs ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna
ITA 204/PAT/2019[2008-09]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2020AY 2008-09Allowed
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable in law because the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) did not specify the charges against the assessee. Therefore, the penalty was quashed.
- ITO, Ward-2(2), Patna vs M/S Rex Educational Services Pvt Ltd, Patna
ITA 228/PAT/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2020AY 2011-12
- Smt Urmila Devi, Patna vs ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna
ITA 203/PAT/2019[2004-05]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2020AY 2004-05Allowed
The Tribunal held that a penalty imposed pursuant to a defective notice, which does not specify the charge (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars), is not sustainable in law. The penalty was therefore quashed.
- Smt Indu Sinha, Patna vs ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna
ITA 201/PAT/2019[2004-05]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2020AY 2004-05Allowed
The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed was not sustainable in law because the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) did not specify the charges against the assessee. The Tribunal quashed the impugned penalty.
- Jamia Salafia Educational Society, Supaul vs ACIT, Circle-3, Purnia
ITA 195/PAT/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2020AY 2011-12
- Smt Neelam Kumari, Patna vs ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna
ITA 200/PAT/2019[2004-05]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2020AY 2004-05Allowed
The Tribunal held that a penalty imposed pursuant to a defective show cause notice, which does not specify the charge (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars), is not sustainable in law. Therefore, the penalty was quashed.
- M/S Nation Automobiles, Kishanganj vs ITO, Ward-3(2), Purnia
ITA 219/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2020AY 2010-11
- Dr. Ashad Imam, Purnia vs ITO, Ward-3(1), Purnia
ITA 221/PAT/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2020AY 2014-15
- ACIT, Circle-1, Patna vs Shrawan Kumar Rungta, Patna
ITA 240/PAT/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2020AY 2015-16
- Ravindra Kumar Singh, Patna vs ITO, Ward-4(5), Patna
ITA 196/PAT/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2020AY 2015-16
- Pawan Kumar Priyadarshi, Patna vs ITO, Ward-5(4), Patna
ITA 198/PAT/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2020AY 2011-12
- Pragati Adarsh Seva Dendra, Samastipur vs ITO, Ward-Exemption, Muzaffarpur
ITA 122/PAT/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2020AY 2013-14
- Nari Shishu Kalyan Parishad, Madhubani vs ITO, Exemption Ward, Muzaffarpur
ITA 170/PAT/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2020AY 2015-16
- Ashok Kumar, Patna vs ITO, Ward-4(5), Patna
ITA 103/PAT/2019[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2020AY 2015-16
- Shakuntala Devi Tekriwal, Patna vs ITO, Ward-6(3), Patna
ITA 171/PAT/2019[2007-08]Status: Disposed21 Sept 2020AY 2007-08
- Namita Kanodia, Muzaffarpur vs ITO, Ward- 1(2), Muzaffarpur
ITA 66/PAT/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2020AY 2014-15Withdrawn
The tribunal noted that the assessees were availing the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the revenue did not dispute this fact. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
- Manoj Kr. Singh, Chhapra vs ITO, Ward-2(2), Chhapra
ITA 79/PAT/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2020AY 2013-14Withdrawn
The tribunal noted that the assessees were availing the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the revenue did not dispute this fact. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
