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/-“

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 and by stating so the representative of the assessee

SANJAY KUMAR ,PATNA vs. ITO WARD-4(5) PATNA , PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

undisclosed sources on the basis of doubt and suspicion is bad in law, liable to be deleted. 8. The National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC)-Delhi or Assessing Officer has wrongly assessed the amount of Rs. 77,53,000/- as income from other sources instead of income from works contract business and considered as deemed to the income of the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. NORTH BIHAR POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and COs of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

undisclosed contractual payments. 5.3.1 In its reply, the appellant has stated that Bajaj Electricals Ltd is one of its suppliers and it gives advances to it. It has received interest from Bajaj Electricals Ltd on the advance paid and the same has been duly accounted for in the books of accounts as interest income. It is contended that Bajaj Electrical

JOINT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX(IN-SITU), CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. NORTH BIHAR POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and COs of the\nassessee are dismissed

undisclosed contractual\npayments.\n5.3.1 In its reply, the appellant has stated that Bajaj Electricals Ltd is one of\nits suppliers and it gives advances to it. It has received interest from Bajaj\nElectricals Ltd on the advance paid and the same has been duly accounted for in\nthe books of accounts as interest income. It is contended that Bajaj Electrical

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

undisclosed source. This was decided in the case of ManinderNath Das V/s CIT, Bihar and Odisa. It is clear that several reasonable opportunities were provided during course of assessment proceedings to explain the source of cash deposit during the demonetisation period, but the appellant failed to submit documentary evidences like sale vouchers, details of stock purchase, closing stock month wise

ASHOK KUMAR,BHOJPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, ARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

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

undisclosed income on unrecorded purchases. Both the authorities have made analysis of the 10 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Ashok Kumar material found during the course of survey. The assessee failed to submit any material to rebut the conclusions of facts arrived at by the revenue authorities below. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this ground of appeal

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

undisclosed income) declared by the assessee. Books of accounts of the assessee has been rejected, by the AO within the meaning of Section 145(3), however, assessment has been framed u/s 143(3) instead of Section 144, which also makes the assessment erroneous. It may be noted that in case of Amhara Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Patna which is also engaged

JCIT(IN-SITU), CIRCLE-1, PATNA., PATNA vs. NORTH BIHAR POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and COs of the\nassessee are dismissed

undisclosed interest on state funded\nscheme. The issue is discussed on page 3 of the assessment order by the AO. The\nfunds received for BRGF Schemes were used for creating capital assets. It was\nsubmitted that interest earned on such fund was accounted for in \"Accretion of\nInterest Capital Fund A/c\" under current liabilities of the balance sheet

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 7. deducted for the assessment year under consideration. 8. Reason for refund claimed, however advance tax was made on the basis income, reason for deviation with documentary evidences (calculations). Please reconcile your income with 26AS, 3CD and ITR alongwith detailed 8. clarification/justification and supporting evidences. 10. In reply to the notice dated 15.12.2020, the assessee furnished submissions

THE MEDISERV,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD 4(5), PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

income returned by the assessee. Therefore, it was claimed that the addition made by the Ld. AO on account of this difference by treating it as undisclosed gross receipt is not tenable. To reconcile the factual details, a statement was submitted which is reproduced as under: 3 The Mediserv, AY: 2014-15 4 The Mediserv, AY: 2014-15 4.1. Further

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,PATNA, PATNA vs. PARTH ASHRAM EDU SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

undisclosed receipts was found from the same impounded documents. Accordingly, the appellant is liable to get the benefit of the expenditure recorded in the impounded material. The AO cannot be at will to accept the income part of the impounded material and reject the expenditure recorded therein. However, the findings of the AO, regarding the expenses claimed as per emails