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

Section 131 of the Income Tax Act 1961, for verification, as noted in the submission dated 06.11.2024 was not acted upon by the Ld AO. The transparency and genuineness of the appellant's business operations are further evidenced by the fact that the majority of transactions were conducted through banking channels with only 5.61% of total purchases made in cash

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

56,550/- treating the Long-term Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed by the assessee as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. Being aggrieved by the said action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide impugned order dated 28.02.2023. The assessee, thus

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

56,550/- treating the Long-term Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed by the assessee as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. Being aggrieved by the said action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide impugned order dated 28.02.2023. The assessee, thus

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

56,550/- treating the Long-term Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed by the assessee as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. Being aggrieved by the said action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide impugned order dated 28.02.2023. The assessee, thus

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

56,550/- treating the Long-term Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed by the assessee as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. Being aggrieved by the said action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide impugned order dated 28.02.2023. The assessee, thus

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

56,550/- treating the Long-term Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed by the assessee as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. Being aggrieved by the said action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide impugned order dated 28.02.2023. The assessee, thus

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.

purchase, salary, audit fees, printing and stationery, preliminary expenses, w/off, general expenses and back charges. The earnings per share shown in the notes of the account at page no.19 of the paper book is 0.09 & 0.04 for the financial year 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 respectively, the source thatthere is a no creditworthiness. We further noticed that there are huge reserve