MAHANT PANDEY,ROHTAS vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reopening of an assessment 16. That Penalty proceeding u/s 272A(2)(l)(d) of the Income Tax Act,’61 is initiated for noncompliance to the Notice u/s 142(1) dated 24/03/2022. It is not possible for a asseesee to comply in short span of time to make reply which is unjustified and against the principal of natural justice. 17. That

MAHANT PANDEY,ROHTAS vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reopening of an assessment 16. That Penalty proceeding u/s 272A(2)(l)(d) of the Income Tax Act,’61 is initiated for noncompliance to the Notice u/s 142(1) dated 24/03/2022. It is not possible for a asseesee to comply in short span of time to make reply which is unjustified and against the principal of natural justice. 17. That

MOHAMMAD TANWEER ALI IMAM,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 5(1), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Mohammad Tanweer Ali Imam, Income Tax Officer, Darul Aman Po Bv College, Ward 5(1), Patna Samanpura, Rajabazar, Vs. Patna-800014 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanpi1722J Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2025

TDS was deducted and deposited on the transfer of the said amount during the F.Y. 2015-16 and accordingly, the income of the assessee has escaped of ₹1,10,00,000/- within the meaning of 147 of the act on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Finally, the assessment

LORD VISHNU CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PATNA vs. PR. CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 23/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Lord Vishnu Constructions Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Private Limited Vs Patna 101, Lotus Apartment New Patliputra Colony Patna - 800013 [Pan: Aabcc5141M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna -1 (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 18/10/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Through Various Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Assailed The Order Of The Ld. Pr. Cit Framed U/S 263 Of The Act. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In Construction Business. The Regular Return Of Income Furnished Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass On Account Of Two Reasons, Namely, “Abnormal Increase In Cash Deposit During

reopening the assessment u/s 148 of the Act. Thus, it was stated that there is no merit in the legal grounds raised by the assessee challenging the jurisdiction of the ld. Assessing Officer. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, it was submitted that the assessee did not file relevant documents before

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

TDS, TCS and self- assessment tax. Ground No. 10-General in nature. During the course of appellate proceedings appellant raised additional ground which is as under: - “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- on the basis of seized documents found in third party

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

TDS, TCS and self- assessment tax. Ground No. 10-General in nature. During the course of appellate proceedings appellant raised additional ground which is as under: - “That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- on the basis of seized documents found in third party

SHEKHAR NARAYAN,PATNA vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reopening the assessment for AY 2017-18 being Salary income offered as income from business and profession. After considering all the facts of the case and submission of the assessee, the Ld. AO treated ₹14,82,260/- as salary income received from the employer for AY 2017-18 and rejected the bogus expenses claimed at ₹7,32,030/- since

SHEKHAR NARAYAN,PATNA vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reopening the assessment for AY 2017-18 being Salary income offered as income from business and profession. After considering all the facts of the case and submission of the assessee, the Ld. AO treated ₹14,82,260/- as salary income received from the employer for AY 2017-18 and rejected the bogus expenses claimed at ₹7,32,030/- since

HYGIENIC PRODUCTS FOR COMMON CITIZENS,MADHEPURA vs. ITO WARD 3(4), SAHARSA, SAHARSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

TDS statement, in-\nterest received. Hence, AO passed assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read\nwith section 144B dated 29.02.2024 by making total addition of Rs.6,31,764/-\nto the income of the appellant.\n\n6.1 It is to be noted here that the appellant had not filed any submission in the\ncourse of the appeal. It is pertinent that

ANIL KUMAR,NALANDA vs. ITO, WARD- 2 (3), BIHARSHARIF

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 361/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anil Kumar National Faceless Assessment Centre M/S Raj Trading Company, Nfac, Delhi Harnaut, Nalanda, Patna-803110 Vs Bihar [Pan : Azopc268H] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

reopening of assessment. 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in relying on judgments for upholding the initiation of proceedings u/s 147/148 that too without confronting the appellant with the same. 7. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that there has been escapement to the extent of Rs. 1,44,000/- in the original

PAVAN KUMAR BHAGAT,SAHARSA vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), SAHARSA, SAHARA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued to the assessee but there was no compliance from the assessee. Accordingly, the assessment was finalised u/s 144 of the Act. The Ld. AO noted that the assessee was an authorised seller of lottery tickets

MD IFTAKHAR ALAM,ARARIA vs. ITO, PURNEA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS is being deducted u/s 194H of the Income Tax Act 1961 further an accumulated commission of Rs.76,569 only has been received by assessee during the financial year 2016-17 relevant to it's AY 2017-18. 7. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the deposits made during the period of demonetization

SARIKA CHOUDHARY,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

TDS deduction status, and appeal filing/hearing status and thereby got to know that the appeal was rejected by the appellate authority in a mechanical manner. The statutory period of 60 days was expiring on 28.04.2024 and in between the assessee approached her Counsel in the first week of February 2024 for filing of appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal

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)

reopened in Patna in the second week of December, then only papers were collected and the same were provided to the counsel for filing of appeal. 2 Ravi Lochan Singh 5 That the appeal was filed on 31.12.20 and the delay occurred due to Corona Pandemic as all the staff were not coming to the office and documents could

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS. 10. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the Ld. assessing officer has erred in disallowing Rs.66,47,34,169/- on the account of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act due to interest income from Fixed Deposit, Saving Account and other income. 11. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 2(1) PATNA, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS. 10. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the Ld. assessing officer has erred in disallowing Rs.66,47,34,169/- on the account of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act due to interest income from Fixed Deposit, Saving Account and other income. 11. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS. 10. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the Ld. assessing officer has erred in disallowing Rs.66,47,34,169/- on the account of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act due to interest income from Fixed Deposit, Saving Account and other income. 11. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIR-2, P)ATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS. 10. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the Ld. assessing officer has erred in disallowing Rs.66,47,34,169/- on the account of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act due to interest income from Fixed Deposit, Saving Account and other income. 11. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points