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

bogus claims, he disallowed said expenditure of Rs. 2.08 crores invoking section 40A(3) Commissioner was of opinion that in essence Assessing Officer had disputed expenditure claimed by assessee and indirectly applied section 37 He was of opinion that not entire expenditure which was under cloud but profit element embedded therein should be brought to tax and, thus, limited disallowance

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

7 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Balkrishna Bhalotia Construction Pvt. Ltd. been rejected by the AO within the meaning of Section 145(3), however, assessment has been framed u/s 143(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

SANJAY KUMAR SHAH,ARARIA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

bogus payment. Then, the disallowance of 16,55,900/­ and its confirmation by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) become hypothetical, imaginary and against the very purpose of the provision of the Act. As such the addition by disallowing , 16,55,900/­ on payment in cash to the agent is not legal, justified & proper. Hence, the same

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

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

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

Section 271(1)(c) in a case where the income has been determined by the Assessing Officer on estimate basis. (5) For that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant in its written submission wherein it has categorically held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable in cases

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

Section 271(1)(c) in a case where the income has been determined by the Assessing Officer on estimate basis. (5) For that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant in its written submission wherein it has categorically held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable in cases

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

Section 271(1)(c) in a case where the income has been determined by the Assessing Officer on estimate basis. (5) For that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant in its written submission wherein it has categorically held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable in cases

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

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

bogus would not constitute reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment warranting reopening of the assessment. Reopening is not permissible on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. It does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction of the assessing authority. Such reason should be held in good faith Page 4 of 14 I.T.A

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

bogus would not constitute reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment warranting reopening of the assessment. Reopening is not permissible on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. It does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction of the assessing authority. Such reason should be held in good faith Page 4 of 14 I.T.A

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

bogus would not constitute reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment warranting reopening of the assessment. Reopening is not permissible on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. It does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction of the assessing authority. Such reason should be held in good faith Page 4 of 14 I.T.A

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

bogus would not constitute reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment warranting reopening of the assessment. Reopening is not permissible on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. It does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction of the assessing authority. Such reason should be held in good faith Page 4 of 14 I.T.A

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

bogus would not constitute reasons to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment warranting reopening of the assessment. Reopening is not permissible on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. It does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction of the assessing authority. Such reason should be held in good faith Page 4 of 14 I.T.A

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

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