New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT

282 ITR 642High Court2006#1253 most cited

What is New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT authority for?

To levy a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer must clearly specify whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars, and an ambiguous or unspecified charge renders the penalty invalid.

90

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT · section 271(1)(c) · section 274 · specific charge penalty · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · penalty invalidity · non-application of mind · deletion of penalty · levy of penalty

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 10(2A)Section 115JBSection 142(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

deletion of penaltysection 271(l)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularspenalty under section 271(1)(c)concealment of incomepenalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 274non-application of mindsection 271(1)levy of penaltychange of opinion

Judgments citing New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 246/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

…ening is the absence of proper quantification in the reasons recorded. The AO is duty-bound to clearly record the amount of alleged escapement of income in order to demonstrate the basis of belief. In Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that the formation of belief must be based on reasonable grounds and supported by specific material, including quantification of escapement. In the present case, not only was the alleged incorrect figure of Rs.3,28,98,301/-, Rs.1,50,67,350/-, Rs.1,58,73,483/- and Rs.70,92,789/- from A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y.…

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 245/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

…ening is the absence of proper quantification in the reasons recorded. The AO is duty-bound to clearly record the amount of alleged escapement of income in order to demonstrate the basis of belief. In Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that the formation of belief must be based on reasonable grounds and supported by specific material, including quantification of escapement. In the present case, not only was the alleged incorrect figure of Rs.3,28,98,301/-, Rs.1,50,67,350/-, Rs.1,58,73,483/- and Rs.70,92,789/- from A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y.…

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 244/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

…ening is the absence of proper quantification in the reasons recorded. The AO is duty-bound to clearly record the amount of alleged escapement of income in order to demonstrate the basis of belief. In Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that the formation of belief must be based on reasonable grounds and supported by specific material, including quantification of escapement. In the present case, not only was the alleged incorrect figure of Rs.3,28,98,301/-, Rs.1,50,67,350/-, Rs.1,58,73,483/- and Rs.70,92,789/- from A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y.…

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 243/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 250

…ening is the absence of proper quantification in the reasons recorded. The AO is duty-bound to clearly record the amount of alleged escapement of income in order to demonstrate the basis of belief. In Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that the formation of belief must be based on reasonable grounds and supported by specific material, including quantification of escapement. In the present case, not only was the alleged incorrect figure of Rs.3,28,98,301/-, Rs.1,50,67,350/-, Rs.1,58,73,483/- and Rs.70,92,789/- from A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y.…

Kanhaiyalal Rameshwar Das, Kota vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

ITA 1454/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ing imposed on concealment of income or on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the impugned penalty order. Hon'ble Gujrat High Court followed the ratio laid down in the case of New Sorathia Engg. Co. [2006] 282 ITR 642 (Guj-High Court). 5. The above ratio laid down in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory Supra) has been followed by various High Courts in the below mentioned cases: i Shri Samson Perinchery. ITA 1154, 953, 1097, 1226 of 2014 (Order date – 5.01.2017) (Bombay High Court) ii SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Karnataka High…

Kanhaiyalal Rameshwar Das, Kota vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

ITA 1453/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ing imposed on concealment of income or on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the impugned penalty order. Hon'ble Gujrat High Court followed the ratio laid down in the case of New Sorathia Engg. Co. [2006] 282 ITR 642 (Guj-High Court). 5. The above ratio laid down in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory Supra) has been followed by various High Courts in the below mentioned cases: i Shri Samson Perinchery. ITA 1154, 953, 1097, 1226 of 2014 (Order date – 5.01.2017) (Bombay High Court) ii SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Karnataka High…

Allied Construction Company, Malad vs. Income Tax Officer - 30 (1) (1), Bandra

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

ITA 4121/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Allied Construction Ito-30(1)(1), Company, C-13, 5Th Floor, 4&5, Sai Zarukha Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, B.J. Patel Road, Bandra East, Malad (West), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400064. Pan : Aapfa8255N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jose Pulikkoden Revenue By : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Jose PulikkodenFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…Appalaraju vs. ITO in ITA No. 253/Viz/2023, dt. 28-05-2024. 6 7. Further, reliance was placed on the following decisions: a. Padma Ram Bharali vs. CIT, 110 ITR 54 (Gau.) b. CIT vs. Jyoti Ltd. [2013] 34 taxmann. com 65 c. New Sorathia Engg. Co. vs. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 642 (GUJ) d. Kansara Bearings Ltd vs. ACIT [2013] Hon'ble ITAT, Jodhpur. e. DCIT vs. B.J.D. Paper products [2012] 17 taxmann.com 11 (Luck.) 8. It was submitted that all the above decisions underscore a fundamental legal principle that the AO must clearly and unequivocally specify the exact charge u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, whether the penalty is bei…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara vs. M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1785/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…alment of particulars of such income. Therefore, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Whiteford India Itd [2013] 38 taxman.com 15, Mamu Engineering Works, [1980]122 ITR 306 and New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 642, the penalty order passed is liable to be struck down, the Ld. Authorized Representative emphasized. I have gone through the decisions relied upon by the appellant in this regard and it is noticed that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Whitefort India Ltd. (2013) 38 taxmann.com 15 itself, after considering the other two decisi…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1750/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ealment of particulars of such income. Therefore, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Whiteford India Itd [2013] 38 taxman.com 15, Mamu Engineering Works,[1980]122 ITR 306 and New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 642, the penalty order passed is liable to be struck down, the Ld. Authorized Representative emphasized. I have gone through the decisions relied upon by the appellant in this regard and it is noticed that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Whitefort India Ltd. (2013) 38 taxmann.com 15 itself, after considering the other two decisi…

Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1741/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ealment of particulars of such income. Therefore, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of Whiteford India Itd [2013] 38 taxman.com 15, Mamu Engineering Works,[1980]122 ITR 306 and New Sorathia Engineering Co. v. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 642, the penalty order passed is liable to be struck down, the Ld. Authorized Representative emphasized. I have gone through the decisions relied upon by the appellant in this regard and it is noticed that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Whitefort India Ltd. (2013) 38 taxmann.com 15 itself, after considering the other two decisi…

Superfine Hotels Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1502/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,"B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड़ कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1502/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 Superfine Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, J-13, Lal Kothi Yojna, Nehru Sahakar Marge, jaipur. बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle6, Jaipur. स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AALCS0201P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assess…

Sujan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 474/AHD/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 132(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…ssing Officer, the order of the penalty passed by the Assessing Officer is liable to be struct down on this ground alone. Reliance is being placed to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of New Sorathia Engineering Company Vs. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642 (Guj.) and CIT Vs. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR (306) (Guj.). Similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Gian Chand Batia Vs. DCIT 61 ITD 24 (All). Therefore, where Assessing Authority itself is not sure about nature of default, the penal action u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable in law. 10. In the r…

Indian Chronicle Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal ofthe assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1275/Ahd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Indian Chronicle Ltd. बनाम/ Ito Gujarat Samacharbhavan, Ward4(3), Ahmedabad Vs. Khanpur,Ahmedabad - 380001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci0793H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondentby: Date Of Hearing 28/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 254(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…e Ltd. Vs. ITO] A.Y. 2007-08- 6 – penalty cannot be levied. In this regard, he has relied upon the following decisions: ✓ Manu engineering Works- (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj]; ✓ Whiteford India Ltd. - (2013) 38 taxmann.com 15 (Guj); ✓ New SorathiaEngg. Co. (2006) 282 ITR 642 (Guj); ✓ Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory -359 ITR 565 (Kar); 7. The Ld. Sr. Counsel further submitted that when the LTCG, which was claimed as exempt income u/s.10(38) of the Act, was duly disclosed in the return of income, tax audit report and the annual accounts, there cannot be a case of concealment of income. Therefore, penalty was wrong…

Balaji Metal and Sponge Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1486/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…Vs. SSA'S Emerald Meadows reported in [2016] 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC) 2. CIT & Anr. Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) (Kar HC) 3. Sri Nilaya AR Projects Hyderabad v. ITO, ITA No. 1572/Hyd/2013 4. New Sorathia Engg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 642/155 Taxman 513 (Guj.) 5. B.P. Poddar Foundation for Education ITA 439/KOL/2023 dated 26/12/2023 6. Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya -vs.- ACIT rendered vide Order dated 06.11.2015 in ITA No. 1303/KQL/2010 7. Principal CIT -vs.- Bijoy Kr. Agarwal (ITAT No. 272 of 2017 dated 02.04.2019) Cal H.C. 8. S.D.Constructions, Kolkata vs A.C.I.T.,Circle-49(1), Kolk…

M/S. D.K. Industries, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 34(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1417/KOL/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…Vs. SSA'S Emerald Meadows reported in [2016] 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC) 2. CIT & Anr. Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565) (Kar HC) 3. Sri Nilaya AR Projects Hyderabad v. ITO, ITA No. 1572/Hyd/2013 4. New Sorathia Engg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 282 ITR 642/155 Taxman 513 (Guj.) Page 2 of 8 I.T.A. No.: 1417/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. D.K. Industries. 5. B.P. Poddar Foundation for Education ITA 439/KOL/2023 dated 26/12/2023 6. Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya -vs.- ACIT rendered vide Order dated 06.11.2015 in ITA No. 1303/KQL/2010 7. Principal CIT -vs.- Bijoy Kr. Agarwal (ITAT No. 272 of 2017 d…

Kothari Jewels Private Limied, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal, file filed by the assessee stands party allowed with no order as to cost

ITA 964/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ng imposed on concealment of income or on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the impugned penalty order. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court followed the ratio laid down in the case of New Sorathia Engg. Co. [2006] 282 ITR 642 (Guj- HC). 11. The above ratio laid down in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (Supra) has been followed by various High courts in the below mentioned cases: - i. SSA'S Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Karnataka High Court) ii. Mitsu Industries Ltd., ITA No. 216 of 2004, Gujarat High Court 12. SLP filed by the department ag…

Nand Kumar Prasad Sah, Muzaffarpur vs. Ac/DCIT Central Circle, Muzaffarpur

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

ITA 185/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, PATNA (Through virtual hearing at Kolkata) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VP AND SHRI DR. MANISH BORAD, AM ITA Nos. 184 & 185/PAT/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15,2016-17) CIT (A) Nand Kumar Prasad Sah Lok Nayak Bhawan Saraiyaganj, Bihar-842001 Vs. Muzaffarpur, Bihar, (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AJNPS7052G ITA Nos. 161 & 162/PAT/2023 (Assessment Year: 2015-16,2016-17) CIT (A) Bishwanath Prasad, Lok Nayak Bhawan Muzaffarpur, Bihar-842001 Vs. Muzaffarpur, Bihar, (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AJNPS7052G Assessee by : Shri SK Tulsiyan, & Ms. Puja Somani, Ars Revenue b…

Nand Kumar Prasad Sah, Muzaffarpur vs. Ac/DCIT Central Circle, Muzaffarpur

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

ITA 184/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, PATNA (Through virtual hearing at Kolkata) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VP AND SHRI DR. MANISH BORAD, AM ITA Nos. 184 & 185/PAT/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15,2016-17) CIT (A) Nand Kumar Prasad Sah Lok Nayak Bhawan Saraiyaganj, Bihar-842001 Vs. Muzaffarpur, Bihar, (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AJNPS7052G ITA Nos. 161 & 162/PAT/2023 (Assessment Year: 2015-16,2016-17) CIT (A) Bishwanath Prasad, Lok Nayak Bhawan Muzaffarpur, Bihar-842001 Vs. Muzaffarpur, Bihar, (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AJNPS7052G Assessee by : Shri SK Tulsiyan, & Ms. Puja Somani, Ars Revenue b…

Bishwanath Prasad, Muzaffarpur vs. Ac/DCIT Central Circle, Muzaffarpur

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

ITA 162/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, PATNA (Through virtual hearing at Kolkata) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VP AND SHRI DR. MANISH BORAD, AM ITA Nos. 184 & 185/PAT/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15,2016-17) CIT (A) Nand Kumar Prasad Sah Lok Nayak Bhawan Saraiyaganj, Bihar-842001 Vs. Muzaffarpur, Bihar, (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AJNPS7052G ITA Nos. 161 & 162/PAT/2023 (Assessment Year: 2015-16,2016-17) CIT (A) Bishwanath Prasad, Lok Nayak Bhawan Muzaffarpur, Bihar-842001 Vs. Muzaffarpur, Bihar, (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AJNPS7052G Assessee by : Shri SK Tulsiyan, & Ms. Puja Somani, Ars Revenue b…

Bishwanath Prasad, Muzaffarpur vs. Ac/DCIT Central Circle, Muzaffarpur

In the result, all the appeals of the both the assessee in ITA

ITA 161/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Patna29 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri SK Tulsiyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, PATNA (Through virtual hearing at Kolkata) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VP AND SHRI DR. MANISH BORAD, AM ITA Nos. 184 & 185/PAT/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15,2016-17) CIT (A) Nand Kumar Prasad Sah Lok Nayak Bhawan Saraiyaganj, Bihar-842001 Vs. Muzaffarpur, Bihar, (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AJNPS7052G ITA Nos. 161 & 162/PAT/2023 (Assessment Year: 2015-16,2016-17) CIT (A) Bishwanath Prasad, Lok Nayak Bhawan Muzaffarpur, Bihar-842001 Vs. Muzaffarpur, Bihar, (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AJNPS7052G Assessee by : Shri SK Tulsiyan, & Ms. Puja Somani, Ars Revenue b…