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

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 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

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

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

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.

set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing officer to examine the matter afresh considering the requirements to be furnished for claiming the deduction by the assessee. 20. We find that it is the assessee’s legal obligation to prove to the satisfaction of the AO the genuineness of the transaction, the identity of the creditors and credit

RAJ CONSTRUCTION,KATIHAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHAGALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raj Construction Circle – 1(1), C/O Mahadev Ghosh, Bhagalpur, Advocate Vs. Bf-199, Salt Lake City, R.N. Plaza, R.B.S.S Kolkata-700064 Sahay Road, Bhagalpur, Bihar- 812001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajfr6306F Assessee By : Shri Mahadev Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2024

bogus is unwarranted, unjustified misleading the facts. Since the sundry creditors amounting to 2,37,71,018.00 is not related to only for this Asstt. Yr. 2015-16. As because it includes 1,13, 20,437/- for earlier yrs. 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that as the appellant

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) &

bogus claim for exemption U/s. 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A letter for cancellation of registration for exemption has been written by the concerned Assessing Officer, Central Circle - 2, Patna to the Principle Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar & Jharkhand (copy enclosed for kind reference).” This part of the remand report relating to the AI-Karim Educational

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) &

bogus claim for exemption U/s. 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A letter for cancellation of registration for exemption has been written by the concerned Assessing Officer, Central Circle - 2, Patna to the Principle Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar & Jharkhand (copy enclosed for kind reference).” This part of the remand report relating to the AI-Karim Educational

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) &

bogus claim for exemption U/s. 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A letter for cancellation of registration for exemption has been written by the concerned Assessing Officer, Central Circle - 2, Patna to the Principle Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar & Jharkhand (copy enclosed for kind reference).” This part of the remand report relating to the AI-Karim Educational

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) &

bogus claim for exemption U/s. 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A letter for cancellation of registration for exemption has been written by the concerned Assessing Officer, Central Circle - 2, Patna to the Principle Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar & Jharkhand (copy enclosed for kind reference).” This part of the remand report relating to the AI-Karim Educational

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/-“

loss account and balance sheet during the course of assessment nor books of account was produce. The assessee however has stated that the income has been computed under 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