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\ncommission income.\n3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.\nCIT(A)-3, Patna erred in not considering the observation of the Special Auditor, in\nwhich he reported that no conclusive evidence regarding exempted sale, exempted\npurchase, commission income and expenses shown in the profit and loss account of\nM/s

RAJESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENT CIR MZF, MUZAFFARPUR

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

bogus\ncommission income.\n3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.\nCIT(A)-3, Patna erred in not considering the observation of the Special Auditor, in\nwhich he reported that no conclusive evidence regarding exempted sale, exempted\npurchase, commission income and expenses shown in the profit and loss account of\nM/s

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\ncommission income.\n3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.\nCIT(A)-3, Patna erred in not considering the observation of the Special Auditor, in\nwhich he reported that no conclusive evidence regarding exempted sale, exempted\npurchase, commission income and expenses shown in the profit and loss account of\nM/s

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

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 of raw materials. 3.2. It is noted that against

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

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 has added unexplained sundry creditors (list provided

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

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 28.07.2621, the said assessee company (Amhara Constructions Private Limited) was found to be indulging in inflated expenses through bogus purchase bills of raw materials. 3.2. Further, the Assessing Officer has added unexplained

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

100/- for A.Y.2014-2015, Rs.4,19,890/- for A.Y.2015- 2016 and return of income u/s. 142(1) of the Act was filed declaring total income at Rs.4,89,730/- for A.Y.2016-2017. Consequently, the Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s.153A of the Act for A.Y.2014-2015 & 2015-2016 and u/s. 143(3) for A.Y.2016-2017, making additions in respective appeals. The Assessing Officer also

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

100/- for A.Y.2014-2015, Rs.4,19,890/- for A.Y.2015- 2016 and return of income u/s. 142(1) of the Act was filed declaring total income at Rs.4,89,730/- for A.Y.2016-2017. Consequently, the Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s.153A of the Act for A.Y.2014-2015 & 2015-2016 and u/s. 143(3) for A.Y.2016-2017, making additions in respective appeals. The Assessing Officer also

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

100/- for A.Y.2014-2015, Rs.4,19,890/- for A.Y.2015- 2016 and return of income u/s. 142(1) of the Act was filed declaring total income at Rs.4,89,730/- for A.Y.2016-2017. Consequently, the Assessing Officer framed the assessment u/s.153A of the Act for A.Y.2014-2015 & 2015-2016 and u/s. 143(3) for A.Y.2016-2017, making additions in respective appeals. The Assessing Officer also

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.

100. 3.7 However, under the Income-tax Act, 1961, the procedural requirement has been spread over three sections, being Sections 147, 148 and 149. The period of limitation within which notice under Section 148 has to be issued is specified in Section 149. Section 153 (2) of the Act stipulates that no order of re-assessment can be passed beyond

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/-“

section 44AD and by stating so the representative of the assessee has argued that the total income disclosed by the assessee is equal to 15.75% of the total receipt of Rs. 20,82,626/-. The return of income and the computation sheet enclosed with the paper book and placed as page…… to …… of P.B. established this fact. The assessing officer