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) &

13 Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the reason to believe, as recorded by the income-tax authority under this sub- section, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal. 1. In the instant case, on 15.06.2013 and 17.06.2013, the SHO, Shastrinagar Police Station in presence of Magistrate, District

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) &

13 Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the reason to believe, as recorded by the income-tax authority under this sub- section, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal. 1. In the instant case, on 15.06.2013 and 17.06.2013, the SHO, Shastrinagar Police Station in presence of Magistrate, District

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.

c. Mastermind Vanijya Pvt. Ltd.(PB Page10 to 19)(Rs.10,00,000/-): The bank statement has been filed only for the month of October, 2009. There was opening balance on the beginning of the month is Rs.90,481/- and on 1st October, 2009, Rs.10,00,000/- have been credited into the bank account. The share applicant has issued cheque

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

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

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

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

bogus Kolkata based shell companies." That reason recorded above like “………….Thus, the loan taken by the assessee ie. M/s Shanker Construction is to be treated as unexplained cash credit in the books of the assessee under the provision of section 68 of the Act. In this regard, enquiry was carried out on ITBA, e-filling portal and ITD database

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

bogus persons / entities as named in the assessment order. Hence the total amount of credit in the said current account was stood at Rs.34,13,13,634/ which is inclusive of cash deposits of Rs,7,20,46,000/-. These amounts were transferred to various ultimate beneficiaries through RTGS/Cheque and Shree Nanak Ferro Alloys

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

C. Cables Ltd. (ITA No. 335/2015). In the case of Amar Lal Bajaj v ACIT (2013) 37 Taxmann.com 7 (Mum) (Trib) the CIT accorded his sanction/approval by simply affixing "approved" at the bottom of the proposal prepared by A.O. It was held that such approval cannot be construed as sanction/approval u/s 151(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly

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

C. Cables Ltd. (ITA No. 335/2015). In the case of Amar Lal Bajaj v ACIT (2013) 37 Taxmann.com 7 (Mum) (Trib) the CIT accorded his sanction/approval by simply affixing "approved" at the bottom of the proposal prepared by A.O. It was held that such approval cannot be construed as sanction/approval u/s 151(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly

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

C. Cables Ltd. (ITA No. 335/2015). In the case of Amar Lal Bajaj v ACIT (2013) 37 Taxmann.com 7 (Mum) (Trib) the CIT accorded his sanction/approval by simply affixing "approved" at the bottom of the proposal prepared by A.O. It was held that such approval cannot be construed as sanction/approval u/s 151(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly

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

C. Cables Ltd. (ITA No. 335/2015). In the case of Amar Lal Bajaj v ACIT (2013) 37 Taxmann.com 7 (Mum) (Trib) the CIT accorded his sanction/approval by simply affixing "approved" at the bottom of the proposal prepared by A.O. It was held that such approval cannot be construed as sanction/approval u/s 151(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly

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

C. Cables Ltd. (ITA No. 335/2015). In the case of Amar Lal Bajaj v ACIT (2013) 37 Taxmann.com 7 (Mum) (Trib) the CIT accorded his sanction/approval by simply affixing "approved" at the bottom of the proposal prepared by A.O. It was held that such approval cannot be construed as sanction/approval u/s 151(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly