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

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 in the business of government contracts involving construction and maintenance of roads, culverts, footpaths etc. has declared profits of 10% or more on a turnover of about Rs. 100 crores

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

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

bogus purchase,\nfictitious sale, false commission receipt, or unverifiable expense was\nidentified or quantified by the auditor. In the absence of such specific\nadverse findings, the assessee submitted that the AO was not\njustified in drawing sweeping conclusions solely on the basis of the\naudit report.\n2.1.4.3. The Id AR submitted that the Assessing Officer, while\nframing the assessment under

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) &

bogus claim for exemption U/s. 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A letter for cancellation of registration for exemption has been written by the concerned Assessing Officer, Central Circle - 2, Patna to the Principle Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar & Jharkhand (copy enclosed for kind reference).” This part of the remand report relating to the AI-Karim Educational

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) &

bogus claim for exemption U/s. 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A letter for cancellation of registration for exemption has been written by the concerned Assessing Officer, Central Circle - 2, Patna to the Principle Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar & Jharkhand (copy enclosed for kind reference).” This part of the remand report relating to the AI-Karim Educational

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. AHMAD ASHFAQUE KARIM, 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) &

bogus claim for exemption U/s. 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A letter for cancellation of registration for exemption has been written by the concerned Assessing Officer, Central Circle - 2, Patna to the Principle Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar & Jharkhand (copy enclosed for kind reference).” This part of the remand report relating to the AI-Karim Educational

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) &

bogus claim for exemption U/s. 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A letter for cancellation of registration for exemption has been written by the concerned Assessing Officer, Central Circle - 2, Patna to the Principle Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar & Jharkhand (copy enclosed for kind reference).” This part of the remand report relating to the AI-Karim Educational

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.

3,54,349.50/- and loans and advances of Rs. 5,05,22,357/- and miscellaneous expenditure of Rs. 70,800/- have been shown. The taxable income shown in the income tax return is meagre amount. The date of birth of share applicant is as per PAN CARD 21.08.2008.These figures of the balance sheet, shows that alleged share applicant

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

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

bogus purchase,\nfictitious sale, false commission receipt, or unverifiable expense was\nidentified or quantified by the auditor. In the absence of such specific\nadverse findings, the assessee submitted that the AO was not\njustified in drawing sweeping conclusions solely on the basis of the\naudit report.\n2.1.4.3. The Id AR submitted that the Assessing Officer, while\nframing the assessment under

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

3) of the Act and no adverse findings were given regarding purchase of the aforesaid shares in the said assessments carried out in the case of the assessee, then there was no question of making addition on the sale of the shares. Even the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has demonstrated that the shares were purchased in view

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

3) of the Act and no adverse findings were given regarding purchase of the aforesaid shares in the said assessments carried out in the case of the assessee, then there was no question of making addition on the sale of the shares. Even the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has demonstrated that the shares were purchased in view

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

3) of the Act and no adverse findings were given regarding purchase of the aforesaid shares in the said assessments carried out in the case of the assessee, then there was no question of making addition on the sale of the shares. Even the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has demonstrated that the shares were purchased in view

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

3) of the Act and no adverse findings were given regarding purchase of the aforesaid shares in the said assessments carried out in the case of the assessee, then there was no question of making addition on the sale of the shares. Even the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has demonstrated that the shares were purchased in view

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

3) of the Act and no adverse findings were given regarding purchase of the aforesaid shares in the said assessments carried out in the case of the assessee, then there was no question of making addition on the sale of the shares. Even the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has demonstrated that the shares were purchased in view

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

bogus purchase. Re-assessment order passed on 30-12- 2016 assessing income u/s. 147 of the Act at Rs.75,18,15,733/-. 4. Thereafter, the ld. AO carried out proceedings u/s.154 of the Act for rectifying the mistakes apparent on record/made while completing the assessment for A.Y 2010-11 u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 11-03-2013. During

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.

Section 254 of the Act clearly lays down that the CIT(A) may make such further enquiry as he thinks fit or may direct the AO to make further enquiry (through Remand Report), but overlooking the fact that numerous notices were issued, and opportunities were provided but Assessee/Assessee’s AR resorted to complete non-compliance & even after seeking adjournment

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

3) For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in invoking provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act whereas the fact remains that the fiscal law is guided by pre-ponderance of probability and the provisions of Evidence Act are strictly not applicable. . (4) For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in invoking Explanation 5A to Section