DCIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. M/S ALKEM LABORATORIES LTD, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

deduction claimed u/s. 35(2AB) of Rs.21,87,20,016/- and Rs.77,64,338/- on account of bogus purchase. Re-assessment

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

deduction under those sections shall be allowed. Further, assessee has received interest income of Rs. 25,09,727/- during the year. Hence, total from business of the assessee comes to Rs. 1,24,93,982/- (99,84,254 + 25,09,727). Considering the aforesaid facts and discussion, the total income of the assessee from business is calculated at Rs.1

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

deduction under those sections shall be allowed. Further, assessee has received interest income of Rs.1,89,99,741/- and discount income of Rs.1,55,763/- during the year. Hence, total from business of the assessee comes to Rs.14,08,57,536/-. Considering the aforesaid facts and discussion, the total income of the assessee from business is calculated at Rs.14

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

deduction under those sections shall be allowed. Further, assessee has received interest income of Rs.19,44,075/- and incentive income of Rs.1,27,810/- during the year. Hence, total from business of the assessee comes to Rs.1,74,81,433/- (1,54,09,548 + 19,44,075 + 1,27,810). Considering the aforesaid facts and discussion, the total income

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

deduction. The Revenue has raised one more issue that the learned CIT (A) has erred in adopting the GP rate of 1.6% of the total turnover by ignoring the fact that the assessee has not taking into account the amount of ₹5,63,71,552/-, which represented cash purchases made outside the books of account of the assessee from various

M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

deduction by the assessee. 20. We find that it is the assessee’s legal obligation to prove to the satisfaction of the AO the genuineness of the transaction, the identity of the creditors and credit-worthiness of the investors, whether they have the financial capacity to make the investment in question, and thus discharge the primary onus

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/-“

deducted by bank" 2.2 I have considered the facts of the case. The AO has taken the net profit @ 15.75% which was overall net profit rate taking into account interest income. As per above computation, the income of the appellant would come to Rs.1,37,100/-+ Rs. 3,68,871/- = Rs. 5,05,971/ - as against income disclosed

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

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 of Income