NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

TDS deducted thereon, register marked as NPT-02, details about cash receipt from different persons referred in seized material NPT-02. Reference also made to seized document BKC-03, MCT-10, MCT-13, NPT-01. Ld. Pr. CIT also asked the assessee to explain about the page wise description of receipt and payment written in the seized material marked

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

TDS deducted thereon, register marked as NPT-02, details about cash receipt from different persons referred in seized material NPT-02. Reference also made to seized document BKC-03, MCT-10, MCT-13, NPT-01. Ld. Pr. CIT also asked the assessee to explain about the page wise description of receipt and payment written in the seized material marked

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

TDS deducted thereon, register marked as NPT-02, details about cash receipt from different persons referred in seized material NPT-02. Reference also made to seized document BKC-03, MCT-10, MCT-13, NPT-01. Ld. Pr. CIT also asked the assessee to explain about the page wise description of receipt and payment written in the seized material marked

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

TDS deducted thereon, register marked as NPT-02, details about cash receipt from different persons referred in seized material NPT-02. Reference also made to seized document BKC-03, MCT-10, MCT-13, NPT-01. Ld. Pr. CIT also asked the assessee to explain about the page wise description of receipt and payment written in the seized material marked

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

TDS deducted thereon, register marked as NPT-02, details about cash receipt from different persons referred in seized material NPT-02. Reference also made to seized document BKC-03, MCT-10, MCT-13, NPT-01. Ld. Pr. CIT also asked the assessee to explain about the page wise description of receipt and payment written in the seized material marked

ASHISH RANJAN,DARBHANGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DARBHANGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

42,570/-\nresulting from non-deposit of TDS by the employer of the assessee.\n2.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee was employed with M/s\nThink and learn Private Limited, which is gone into liquidation and\ntherefore, the tax conducted on behalf of the assessee from the\nsalaries was not deposited resulting into mismatch of TDS claimed

KUMAR SAURABH,WEST BENGAL vs. ITO WARD 4 (1), PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.345/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20

TDS certificate has been issued by State Bank of Germany. 3) That the appellant bona fide submitted Form-67 duly filled up all the particulars, so the appellant should not be penalized on this ground. 4) That the NFAC erred in law and facts of the case by upholding the enhancement of interest u/s 2348 and 234C

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

42,162/-, which will be allowed along with interest and remuneration to partners allowable. The disallowances made by the A.O. u/s 40A(3) and section 40(a)(ia) are hereby deleted and income is estimated at the end of discussion of all other grounds of appeal”. 6. The ld. Sr. D.R. took us through the assessment order. He submitted that

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

section 250 of Income Tax Act 1961 and passed impugned an order on 12.03.2024 confirming addition of I.T.A. No.: 389/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Md. Iftakhar Alam. Rs.23,01,901 subject to verify the claim of assessee that only Rs.13,42,000 has only been deposited on behalf of the several accounts holders during the period of demonetization

SUDHIR KUMAR,PATNA vs. I.T.O., PATNA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sudhir Kumar, Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Vs. Patna. Patna. (Pan: Amlpk4871E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri K. M. Mishra, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Dhanbad, Camp Office At Patna Appeal No. 71/Cit(A)-Ii/13-14 Dated 25.02.2014 For A.Y. 2010-11 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-6(1), Patna, Dated 26.03.2013. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 18.10.2010 Reporting Total Income Of Rs.3,01,260/-. In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ld. Ao Sought Details On Various Aspects Of The Income Reported By The Assessee & Completed The Assessment By Making The Additions As Under: “Total Income As Per Return Rs. 3,01,260/- Add: As Discussed In Para D Rs. 3,42,708/- Add: As Discussed In Para E Rs. 14,03,744/- Add: As Discussed In Para F Rs. 58,92,354/- Total Income Rs. 89,40,066/-“

42,708/- 3. The assessing officer has erred in computing undisclosed income as above. It has been stated in the assessment order that the assessee has not submitted profit and loss account and balance sheet during the course of assessment nor books of account was produce. The assessee however has stated that the income has been computed under section 44AD

MADHYA BIHAR GRAMIN BANK,PATNA vs. C.I.T. -1,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

42,97,860/- as against returned 2 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank income of Rs.1,60,000/-. A perusal of the record would suggest that the assessee had paid interest on deposits of Rs.162.28 crores. There are no details of TDS found on the record. In other words, whether the assessee has deducted the TDS paid

SRIRAM ENTERPRISES,PATNA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 76/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sriram Enterprises,………………………..........Appellant C/O. Nirmal & Associates, Nepali Kothi, Opposite Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001 [Pan:Aarfs8853J] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna,…………………………………..……………..Respondent, Bihar-800001 Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 5Th March, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 8Th, 2024 O R D E R

TDS has been deducted thereon, sub contract and site expenses of Rs. 20,15,02,121/-, repairs to machinery of Rs.2,30,73,982/-,and nature and details of royalty paid of Rs.5,54,69,356/-. 25. If have not taken the photocopies of impounded material earlier then you are requested to take it within seven days of receipt

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

TDS”. The ld. Assessing Officer issued questionnaire and examined the issues. During the course of hearing, the assessee filed various details including ledger of operations, purchase bills of scrap material, sales ledger along with tax audit report. Considering these details, the ld. Assessing Officer concluded the assessment after making addition u/s 69A of the Act at Rs.1,02,42

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

42,852/-. Further, the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs. 2,58,34,383/- u/s 54 of the Act and had shown ‘NIL’ income from long term capital gains on sale of immovable property during the year under consideration. It was also noted that the assessee had received Rs. 4,95,59,000/- from Arnyana Engycon Pvt. Ltd. and TDS