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

purchase and/or unexplained investment was found or seized, therefore, the foundation of penalty is purely on estimation basis. The ld. CIT(Appeals) passed his orders merely by relying on Explanation 5A and without considering the ratios laid down by various judicial forums. Ld. counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case

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

purchase and/or unexplained investment was found or seized, therefore, the foundation of penalty is purely on estimation basis. The ld. CIT(Appeals) passed his orders merely by relying on Explanation 5A and without considering the ratios laid down by various judicial forums. Ld. counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case

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

unexplained investment in purchase of plot. 5.3.4 In view of the above factual discussion and relying on the case laws cited above, the AO is directed to delete the addition made of Rs.4,16,27,400/-.” 2.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee is engaged in the business

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

investments in the form of securities premium to M/s New KMS. These companies are mainly paper companies. During the year under consideration M/s Shanker Construction had received unsecured loan of Rs. 50,90,740/- during the financial year 2015-16. As M/s New KMS is showing very meager income and it does not have any activity to support the huge

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/-“

bogus but at the same time no documents have been filed by the assessee to show and demonstrate the availability of cash in hand of such loan creditors. He also noted that no details of income tax assessment of these persons have been placed on record. 6.1 In the course of hearing before us, the ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions

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)

unexplained credits which were in the form of amount received from existing loans and ITA Nos.78,79,80,99,102,103/Pat/2021 advances/ sales of investment. The quantum of addition will be dealt by us in subsequent paras, however, the ld. AO disallowed the interest of the financial charges, but, the ld. CIT (A) sustained the same only to the extent

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)

unexplained credits which were in the form of amount received from existing loans and ITA Nos.78,79,80,99,102,103/Pat/2021 advances/ sales of investment. The quantum of addition will be dealt by us in subsequent paras, however, the ld. AO disallowed the interest of the financial charges, but, the ld. CIT (A) sustained the same only to the extent

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)

unexplained credits which were in the form of amount received from existing loans and ITA Nos.78,79,80,99,102,103/Pat/2021 advances/ sales of investment. The quantum of addition will be dealt by us in subsequent paras, however, the ld. AO disallowed the interest of the financial charges, but, the ld. CIT (A) sustained the same only to the extent

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)

unexplained credits which were in the form of amount received from existing loans and ITA Nos.78,79,80,99,102,103/Pat/2021 advances/ sales of investment. The quantum of addition will be dealt by us in subsequent paras, however, the ld. AO disallowed the interest of the financial charges, but, the ld. CIT (A) sustained the same only to the extent

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)

unexplained credits which were in the form of amount received from existing loans and ITA Nos.78,79,80,99,102,103/Pat/2021 advances/ sales of investment. The quantum of addition will be dealt by us in subsequent paras, however, the ld. AO disallowed the interest of the financial charges, but, the ld. CIT (A) sustained the same only to the extent

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)

unexplained credits which were in the form of amount received from existing loans and ITA Nos.78,79,80,99,102,103/Pat/2021 advances/ sales of investment. The quantum of addition will be dealt by us in subsequent paras, however, the ld. AO disallowed the interest of the financial charges, but, the ld. CIT (A) sustained the same only to the extent

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.

investment in share application to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-. b. Sunima Steel Marketing Prvt. Ltd. (PB 6 to 9) : (Rs.10,00,000/-) The share applicant has shown nil income in his return of income produced at page No.8. On perusal of the balance sheet filed by the assessee which is placed at paper book page

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

investment - Revenue argued that Tribunal ignored findings indicating sham transactions by company and failed to consider disproportionate increase in share prices - In contrary assessee contended that SEBI's investigation did not implicate them and that all condition for claiming LTCG exemption under section I 0(38) were met, including transaction through stock exchange, payment via banking channels, and payment

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

investment - Revenue argued that Tribunal ignored findings indicating sham transactions by company and failed to consider disproportionate increase in share prices - In contrary assessee contended that SEBI's investigation did not implicate them and that all condition for claiming LTCG exemption under section I 0(38) were met, including transaction through stock exchange, payment via banking channels, and payment

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

investment - Revenue argued that Tribunal ignored findings indicating sham transactions by company and failed to consider disproportionate increase in share prices - In contrary assessee contended that SEBI's investigation did not implicate them and that all condition for claiming LTCG exemption under section I 0(38) were met, including transaction through stock exchange, payment via banking channels, and payment

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

investment - Revenue argued that Tribunal ignored findings indicating sham transactions by company and failed to consider disproportionate increase in share prices - In contrary assessee contended that SEBI's investigation did not implicate them and that all condition for claiming LTCG exemption under section I 0(38) were met, including transaction through stock exchange, payment via banking channels, and payment

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

investment - Revenue argued that Tribunal ignored findings indicating sham transactions by company and failed to consider disproportionate increase in share prices - In contrary assessee contended that SEBI's investigation did not implicate them and that all condition for claiming LTCG exemption under section I 0(38) were met, including transaction through stock exchange, payment via banking channels, and payment