BBCPL-SKPL (JV),JAMUI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

section 144 of the Income Tax Act. He made a reference of Amhara Constructions Pvt. Limited, Patna, who has disclosed profit @ 10% and who was engaged in the similar line of construction. On due consideration of this fold of reasoning, we are of the view that the assessee has submitted before the revenue authorities that it derives income from

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

Section 271AAC, 272A(1)(d) and 271F of the Act. 17. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration and as per information available with the Assessing Officer (hereinafter

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

SEEMA SRIVASTAVA,PATNA vs. ITO,DC/AC-6, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144 for non-compliance to final SCN dated 07.12.2019. 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in not taking into the consideration the fact that no proper & adequate opportunity of hearing was granted by the A.O. and thus, there has been violation of natural justice on the part of the A.O. 4. For that

BIJAY KUMAR SARAF,DALDALI BAZAR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. DC/AC CIRCLE 1,MUZFFARPUR, IT-OFFICE, POLICE LINE, SIKANDERPUR MUZZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 194C(6). All the compliance had been complied ITA No.: 205/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Bijay Kumar Saraf. by the appellant during the year under consideration as per the prevailing law during the said period. 11. For that the learned commissioner of income tax (Appeals) had failed to appreciate the fact that the payment made in respect

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN.LTD.,PATNA vs. CIT (APPEAL), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

144 read with Section 147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2013-14 by the ld. assessing officer, viz. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Patna, is bad both in law and on facts. I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024 AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Bihar State Road

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

144 read with Section 147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2013-14 by the ld. assessing officer, viz. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Patna, is bad both in law and on facts. I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024 AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Bihar State Road

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, COR-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

144 read with Section 147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2013-14 by the ld. assessing officer, viz. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Patna, is bad both in law and on facts. I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024 AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Bihar State Road

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

144 read with Section 147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2013-14 by the ld. assessing officer, viz. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Patna, is bad both in law and on facts. I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024 AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Bihar State Road

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

144 read with Section 147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2013-14 by the ld. assessing officer, viz. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Patna, is bad both in law and on facts. I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024 AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Bihar State Road

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

144 read with Section 147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2013-14 by the ld. assessing officer, viz. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Patna, is bad both in law and on facts. I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024 AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Bihar State Road

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

144 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 29.03.2022, assessing the income at ₹1,10,00,000/-. 05. The facts in brief are that the assessee has not filed any return of income. As per information received from ITO (INTL), stating that assessee has not complied with the notices. It was further stated that

I.T.O. vs. M/S KUMAR CONSTRUCLTION,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

TDS on such payment, therefore, these payments are not to be allowed as a deduction to the assessee under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. He further submitted that effort at the end of the assessee was to frustrate the ld. Assessing Officer for conducting proper inquiries in its accounts. The assessee kept on changing the stand

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

144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act, dated 24.03.2022 and 08.09.2022, respectively. Both the appeals were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity since the issues are related. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I.T.A

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

144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act, dated 24.03.2022 and 08.09.2022, respectively. Both the appeals were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity since the issues are related. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I.T.A

JAINAM ORNAMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,GAYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GAYA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Jainam Ornament Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Chowk, Gaya, Gaya, Gaya, Bihar Vs. Bihar-823001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcj2187M Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

TDS is not deducted and even does not maintain any identity proof of these purchasers. The only method to verify whether the actual transactions have been conducted by the jeweller is to check the availability of the stocks during the days of huge cash sales. The appellant during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings

NORTH BIHAR CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3, DARBHANGA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 243/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 North Bihar Construction Pvt. Limited,………Appellant Singh Sadan, Veer Kunwar Singh Path, Danapur Cantt., Patna-801503, Bihar [Pan:Aabcn9870B] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.…...Respondent Circle-3, Darbhanga Darbhanga-846001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Pankaj Jyoti, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ajay Kr. Shukla, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 10, 2024 O R D E R

section 144 of the Act declaring total income at Rs.96,22,870/-. 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) has issued several notices, but the assessee after receipt of the notices did not file any written submission or furnish any evidence to support its claim. Therefore

MASUDAN TANTI,BHAGALPUR vs. CIT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14

144 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act. Subsequently Appeal was filled and appeal was also rejected on the ground that documents and reply not submitted. Later, after so many request on 21.05.2024 the appellant had able to collect the ledger and Form 27D from BIHAR STATE BEVERAGE CORPORATION LIMITED for the Financial Year 2012-13 and attaching