DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), MUZAFFARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. RAJESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as that of the\nassessee are dismissed

purchases, commission income, or expenses to be bogus or\nfictitious. The assessee further submitted that a special audit report\ndoes not override statutory books of account, audited financial\nstatements, or primary documentary evidence maintained in the\nregular course of business

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. RAJESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as that of the assessee are dismissed

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

purchases, commission income, or expenses to be bogus or fictitious. The assessee further submitted that a special audit report does not override statutory books of account, audited financial statements, or primary documentary evidence maintained in the regular course of business

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. RAJESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as that of the assessee are dismissed

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

purchases, commission income, or expenses to be bogus or fictitious. The assessee further submitted that a special audit report does not override statutory books of account, audited financial statements, or primary documentary evidence maintained in the regular course of business

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. SINCON INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

business of construction and maintenance of roads,\nbridges, etc. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under\nComputer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for the reason that the\nsubstantial purchases were made from the suppliers who had not filed\nthe returns of income. The Learned AO noted that in case of 7 suppliers,\nfrom whom the purchases aggregating

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

purchases and allowability of the same under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The chances of such purchases/expenses being bogus is high and the amount may be substantially higher than the credit balances admitted by the assessee to be non-existent and offered for taxation. This lack of enquiry makes the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

BALKRISHNA BHALOTIA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMUI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

purchases and allowability of the same under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The chances of such purchases/expenses being bogus is high and the amount may be substantially higher than the credit balances admitted by the assessee to be nonexistent and offered for taxation. This lack of enquiry makes the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

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/-“

business carried on by the assessee. By applying the rate of 8% on Rs.14,31,683/-, income component of these deposits comes to Rs.1,14,535/-. Further, on 14.10.2009 there is a credit of Rs.5,65,751/- twice in the ICICI Bank account towards closure proceeds of fixed deposits. Since this bank account is an undisclosed bank account

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

purchases and allowability of the same under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The chances of such purchases/expenses being bogus is high, considering the fact that in related sister concern of M/s Balkrishana Bhalotia Construction Private Limited (BBCPL) and joint venture partner, non existing creditors’ balances of more than Rs.9 crores were offered by the assessee, and has been

ITO, WARD-2(1), BEGUSARAI, BEGUSARAI vs. MANISH KUMAR MOTANI, KHAGARIA, BIHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and CO of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajjpm4263D Co No. 02/Pat/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 442/Pat/2024 For A.Y. 2017-18) Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri A.K. Rastogi, S.K. Duta, Ars Revenue By : Shri A.H. Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

Income-tax Act, 1961-Business expenditure Allowability of (Business expenditure) Assessment year 2009-10-Assessee made various payments totaling to Rs 2.08 crores through mode other than account payee cheque or bank draft though each payment exceeded Rs. 20.000 per day Though Assessing Officer was of opinion that assessee inflated purchase expenditure by raising bogus

SANJAY KUMAR SHAH,ARARIA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

bogus payment in cash. Rather, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) stated in the order that 95% payment on this account made by cheques only and 5% amount was paid in cash. Both the income tax authorities denied the appellant claim of 5% paid in cash under the Rule 6DD(j) (1) & (2) for not stating any exceptional & unavoidable

SANTOSH KUMAR KESHRI,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 226/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Santosh Kumar Keshri,………..…….…………Appellant Shop No. 3, Jaiswal Market, Sabji Mandi, Mithapur-800001, Bihar [Pan:Asapk1127E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,...Respondent Dc/Ac Circle-6, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Supriya Sharma, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

bogus Sundry Creditors to the total Income of the assessee under section 68 of the Act and the same figure of addition was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). The Assessee had provided the list of Sundry Creditors to the Ld. A.O. and the bank statements for the F.Y. 2016-17 and 2017-18 for verification of genuineness of the transactions along

M/S PSP TRADING PVT LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 2 (1), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

purchases to the extent of ₹48,13,275/- u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), which is wrong, illegal and unjustified.\n2.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee engaged in the business of wholesale trading of iron and steel mostly on consignment basis. The return o9f income was filed u/s 139 of the Act declaring

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. SHREE NANAK FERRO ALLOYS PVT LTD, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Shree Nanak Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-2 Room No.205, 2Nd Floor, Avrtar Acit, Circle-2, Patna, Bihar Vs. Building, Bisturpur, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics1706N Assessee By : S/Shri A.K. Rastogi Rakesh Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Md Ah Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2025

business of manufacturing of Ferro Alloys as well as trading in goods. The case of the assessee was reopened by the AO under Section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act on 04.11.2015, after the learned Assessing Officer received information from Director of Income Tax (I & CI) that appellant had received bogus entries

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

bogus would not constitute reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment warranting reopening of the assessment. Reopening is not permissible on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. It does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction of the assessing authority. Such reason should be held in good faith Page 4 of 14 I.T.A

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

bogus would not constitute reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment warranting reopening of the assessment. Reopening is not permissible on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. It does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction of the assessing authority. Such reason should be held in good faith Page 4 of 14 I.T.A

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

bogus would not constitute reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment warranting reopening of the assessment. Reopening is not permissible on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. It does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction of the assessing authority. Such reason should be held in good faith Page 4 of 14 I.T.A

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

bogus would not constitute reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment warranting reopening of the assessment. Reopening is not permissible on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. It does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction of the assessing authority. Such reason should be held in good faith Page 4 of 14 I.T.A

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

bogus would not constitute reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment warranting reopening of the assessment. Reopening is not permissible on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. It does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction of the assessing authority. Such reason should be held in good faith Page 4 of 14 I.T.A