ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. NUZHAT NASREEN, L/H AHMAD ASHFAQUEKARIM OF NUZHAT NASREEN, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

sections of Indian Penal Code. A case under Prevention of Corruption Act. A case under Bihar Examination Control Act and a case under Arms Act filed against Md. AA Karim. This above fact was disclosed by the Income Tax Department in their Appraisal report without any information about filing of any case against AI- Karim Educational Trust. 1

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S AL-KARIM EDUCATIONAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

sections of Indian Penal Code. A case under Prevention of Corruption Act. A case under Bihar Examination Control Act and a case under Arms Act filed against Md. AA Karim. This above fact was disclosed by the Income Tax Department in their Appraisal report without any information about filing of any case against AI- Karim Educational Trust. 1

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.

10,00,000/-. b. Sunima Steel Marketing Prvt. Ltd. (PB 6 to 9) : (Rs.10,00,000/-) The share applicant has shown nil income in his return of income produced at page No.8. On perusal of the balance sheet filed by the assessee which is placed at paper book page at 9 only summary of balance sheet has been

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

10% or more on a turnover of about Rs. 100 crores in the relevant assessment year and is a comparable case. It may also be mentioned that subsequent to search and seizure operation carried out on 28.07.2021, the assessee company was found to be indulging in inflated expenses through bogus purchase bills of raw materials. 3.2. Further, the Assessing Officer

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

10% or more on a turnover of about Rs. 100 crores in the relevant assessment year and is a comparable case. It may also be mentioned that subsequent to search and seizure 6 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 BBCPL- RCPL (JV) operation carried out on 28.07.2021, the assessee company was found to be indulging in inflated expenses through bogus purchase bills

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

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

10% on Freight & wages expenses, Miscellaneous expenses, travelling and conveyance expenses etc. 6. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the first addition of ₹8,02,45,293/- made by the learned Assessing Officer under Section 40A(3) of the Act in respect of cash purchases, however, directed the learned

SHREE MANGALAM ALUMINIUM,PATNA vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos. 486 To 488/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 To 2016-2017 Shree Mangalam Aluminium,…...….………Appellant Pandey Plaza Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Abkfs3963M] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,……………………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, Bihar

bogus purchases to factor in suppression of alleged gross profit, no penalty can be levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars of income, which ld. AO has held in his penalty order that penalty is being levied under both the limbs, which itself shows his satisfaction is vague. Accordingly, penalty levied on such adhoc estimate cannot

SHREE MANGALAM ALUMINIUM,PATNA vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos. 486 To 488/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 To 2016-2017 Shree Mangalam Aluminium,…...….………Appellant Pandey Plaza Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Abkfs3963M] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,……………………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, Bihar

bogus purchases to factor in suppression of alleged gross profit, no penalty can be levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars of income, which ld. AO has held in his penalty order that penalty is being levied under both the limbs, which itself shows his satisfaction is vague. Accordingly, penalty levied on such adhoc estimate cannot

SHREE MANGALAM ALUMINIUM,PATNA vs. DC/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos. 486 To 488/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 To 2016-2017 Shree Mangalam Aluminium,…...….………Appellant Pandey Plaza Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Abkfs3963M] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,……………………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, Bihar

bogus purchases to factor in suppression of alleged gross profit, no penalty can be levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars of income, which ld. AO has held in his penalty order that penalty is being levied under both the limbs, which itself shows his satisfaction is vague. Accordingly, penalty levied on such adhoc estimate cannot

SHANKAR CONSTRUCTION,PANCHGACHIA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 565/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Shankar Construction,………………..…….……Appellant Panchgachia, Panchgachia-852124, Bihar [Pan:Abofs0800R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….……..……Respondent Ward-3(1), Purnea, Bihar Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashok Kumar, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 18, 2024 O R D E R

10 Shankar Construction Whether it is “information to suggest” under amended law or “reason to believe” under erstwhile law the benchmark of “escapement of income chargeable to tax” still remains the primary condition to be satisfied before invoking powers u/s 147 of the Act. Merely because the revenue classifies a fact already on record as “information” may vest it with

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting relief to the assessee on account of adjustment made to book profit on account of Provisions for Doubtful debts/advance for A.V. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 under the provision of section 115JB of the Income

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

1:10, and as such, the assessee became beneficiary of 60000 shares, which were sold during the assessment year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further contended that when the shares in question were purchased during the AY 2013-14 through the IPO and the same were showing in the Demat account

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

1:10, and as such, the assessee became beneficiary of 60000 shares, which were sold during the assessment year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further contended that when the shares in question were purchased during the AY 2013-14 through the IPO and the same were showing in the Demat account

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

1:10, and as such, the assessee became beneficiary of 60000 shares, which were sold during the assessment year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further contended that when the shares in question were purchased during the AY 2013-14 through the IPO and the same were showing in the Demat account

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

1:10, and as such, the assessee became beneficiary of 60000 shares, which were sold during the assessment year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further contended that when the shares in question were purchased during the AY 2013-14 through the IPO and the same were showing in the Demat account

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

1:10, and as such, the assessee became beneficiary of 60000 shares, which were sold during the assessment year under consideration i.e. AY 2015-16. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has further contended that when the shares in question were purchased during the AY 2013-14 through the IPO and the same were showing in the Demat account

THE I.T.O., BHAGALPUR vs. M/S SILK CENRE, BHAGALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Amit Shukla, Jm Ita No. 210/Pat./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Silk Centre, Ward-1(3), Hazari Sah Lane, Nath Nagar, Bhagalpur Bhagalpur-812004 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aavfs0591F Assessee By : Sh. K. N. Prasad, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kaushik Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 21.03.2013 Of Ld. Cit(A)-I, Patna.

1) of the Act and never produced Books of Accounts in the form of Cash Book, Ledger, Purchase & Sale Ledger & their Vouchers before 2 ITA No. 210/Pat./2013 Silk Centre the AO, and the deletion of Rs.1,36,37,183/- is illegal & bad-in-law & facts; iii) The order of CIT(A) is perverse