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

132(4), the\nspecial audit report obtained under section 142(2A), and the detailed\nwritten submissions and documentary evidences furnished by the\nassessee, recorded a categorical finding that the Assessing Officer\nhad failed to bring on record any cogent, tangible, or corroborative\nmaterial to establish that the disclosed turnover of food grain\nbusiness carried on by M/s Maa Annapurna Enterprises

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 assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

132(4), the special audit report obtained under section 142(2A), and the detailed written submissions and documentary evidences furnished by the assessee, recorded a categorical finding that the Assessing Officer had failed to bring on record any cogent, tangible, or corroborative material to establish that the disclosed turnover of food grain business carried on by M/s Maa Annapurna Enterprises

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 assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

132(4), the special audit report obtained under section 142(2A), and the detailed written submissions and documentary evidences furnished by the assessee, recorded a categorical finding that the Assessing Officer had failed to bring on record any cogent, tangible, or corroborative material to establish that the disclosed turnover of food grain business carried on by M/s Maa Annapurna Enterprises

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) &

purchased property, the property is in Jasola but he does not remember address and he does not know whether registry has been done or not. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly equated the evidentiary value of the case diary of the police authority under the IPC with that of proceeding under Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That

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) &

purchased property, the property is in Jasola but he does not remember address and he does not know whether registry has been done or not. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly equated the evidentiary value of the case diary of the police authority under the IPC with that of proceeding under Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That

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) &

purchased property, the property is in Jasola but he does not remember address and he does not know whether registry has been done or not. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly equated the evidentiary value of the case diary of the police authority under the IPC with that of proceeding under Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That

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) &

purchased property, the property is in Jasola but he does not remember address and he does not know whether registry has been done or not. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly equated the evidentiary value of the case diary of the police authority under the IPC with that of proceeding under Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That

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

132 of the Act. 4. Now the assessee is in further appeals before the Tribunal for all the three assessment years i.e. AYs 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 and raised the following issues:- (1) For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in affirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the difference between income assessed and relief allowed

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

132 of the Act. 4. Now the assessee is in further appeals before the Tribunal for all the three assessment years i.e. AYs 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 and raised the following issues:- (1) For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in affirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the difference between income assessed and relief allowed

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

132 of the Act. 4. Now the assessee is in further appeals before the Tribunal for all the three assessment years i.e. AYs 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 and raised the following issues:- (1) For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in affirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the difference between income assessed and relief allowed

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.

132 ITR 707 (Delhi), Manikonda Venkata Narasimhamv. CIT [I960] 39 ITR 575 (AP), R.S. ChiranjiLal& Sons v. CIT [1959] 36 ITR 407 (Punj.), Birds Investments Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 55 ITR 285 (Cat.) and Bhagwan Industries (P.) Ltd. v. CST [1970] 25 STC 420 (All) The expression does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction of the ITO, the forum

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. PIYUSH & ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.99/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle -1 Piyush & Associates Private Ltd. Patna, 6Th Floor, C.R. (Annexee) Vs Pirmohani, Kadamkuan, Patna, Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Bihar-800003 Patna-800001 [Pan : Aadcp3041N] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

section. This group was subjected to search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act ITA Nos.78,79,80,99,102,103/Pat/2021 conducted on 15th March, 2018. On account of search, assessment proceeding for preceding six assessment years were initiated by way of issuing valid notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act after the assessee had furnished

PROMINENT FINANCIAL ADVISORY PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.99/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle -1 Piyush & Associates Private Ltd. Patna, 6Th Floor, C.R. (Annexee) Vs Pirmohani, Kadamkuan, Patna, Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Bihar-800003 Patna-800001 [Pan : Aadcp3041N] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

section. This group was subjected to search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act ITA Nos.78,79,80,99,102,103/Pat/2021 conducted on 15th March, 2018. On account of search, assessment proceeding for preceding six assessment years were initiated by way of issuing valid notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act after the assessee had furnished

PROMINENT FINANCIAL ADVISORY PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.99/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle -1 Piyush & Associates Private Ltd. Patna, 6Th Floor, C.R. (Annexee) Vs Pirmohani, Kadamkuan, Patna, Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Bihar-800003 Patna-800001 [Pan : Aadcp3041N] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

section. This group was subjected to search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act ITA Nos.78,79,80,99,102,103/Pat/2021 conducted on 15th March, 2018. On account of search, assessment proceeding for preceding six assessment years were initiated by way of issuing valid notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act after the assessee had furnished

PIYUSH & ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.99/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle -1 Piyush & Associates Private Ltd. Patna, 6Th Floor, C.R. (Annexee) Vs Pirmohani, Kadamkuan, Patna, Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Bihar-800003 Patna-800001 [Pan : Aadcp3041N] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

section. This group was subjected to search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act ITA Nos.78,79,80,99,102,103/Pat/2021 conducted on 15th March, 2018. On account of search, assessment proceeding for preceding six assessment years were initiated by way of issuing valid notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act after the assessee had furnished

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. PROMINENT FINANCIAL ADVISORY PVT LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.99/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle -1 Piyush & Associates Private Ltd. Patna, 6Th Floor, C.R. (Annexee) Vs Pirmohani, Kadamkuan, Patna, Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Bihar-800003 Patna-800001 [Pan : Aadcp3041N] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

section. This group was subjected to search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act ITA Nos.78,79,80,99,102,103/Pat/2021 conducted on 15th March, 2018. On account of search, assessment proceeding for preceding six assessment years were initiated by way of issuing valid notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act after the assessee had furnished

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. PROMINENT FINANCIAL ADVISORY PVT LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.99/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle -1 Piyush & Associates Private Ltd. Patna, 6Th Floor, C.R. (Annexee) Vs Pirmohani, Kadamkuan, Patna, Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Bihar-800003 Patna-800001 [Pan : Aadcp3041N] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

section. This group was subjected to search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act ITA Nos.78,79,80,99,102,103/Pat/2021 conducted on 15th March, 2018. On account of search, assessment proceeding for preceding six assessment years were initiated by way of issuing valid notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act after the assessee had furnished