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

ii) capital account and Balance Sheet for AY 2007-08 also to show opening balance for Ay 2008- 09 and (iii) copy of bank account. Thereafter, from time to time, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the requisite details to verify the aforesaid claim which were duly furnished by the assessee as is revealed from the copy

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

ii) capital account and Balance Sheet for AY 2007-08 also to show opening balance for Ay 2008- 09 and (iii) copy of bank account. Thereafter, from time to time, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the requisite details to verify the aforesaid claim which were duly furnished by the assessee as is revealed from the copy

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

ii) capital account and Balance Sheet for AY 2007-08 also to show opening balance for Ay 2008- 09 and (iii) copy of bank account. Thereafter, from time to time, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to furnish the requisite details to verify the aforesaid claim which were duly furnished by the assessee as is revealed from the copy

KUMAR ARUNODAYA,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6, PATNA [NEW – DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, PATNA], PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

14,00,000/- was taken from Nirmala Singh and Rs. 10,00,000/- from Ram Prit Singh and Rs. 10,00,000/-from Rohit Engicon Pvt. Ltd.. However no confirmations were filed. Thereafter the AO again requested and called upon the assessee to submit the same but remained non complied. Finally the AO added the same to the income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

14,00,000/- was taken from Nirmala Singh and Rs. 10,00,000/- from Ram Prit Singh and Rs. 10,00,000/-from Rohit Engicon Pvt. Ltd.. However no confirmations were filed. Thereafter the AO again requested and called upon the assessee to submit the same but remained non complied. Finally the AO added the same to the income

KUMAR ARUNOSAYA,PATNA vs. A.O., CIRCLE-6, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

14,00,000/- was taken from Nirmala Singh and Rs. 10,00,000/- from Ram Prit Singh and Rs. 10,00,000/-from Rohit Engicon Pvt. Ltd.. However no confirmations were filed. Thereafter the AO again requested and called upon the assessee to submit the same but remained non complied. Finally the AO added the same to the income

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

14,00,000/- was taken from Nirmala Singh and Rs. 10,00,000/- from Ram Prit Singh and Rs. 10,00,000/-from Rohit Engicon Pvt. Ltd.. However no confirmations were filed. Thereafter the AO again requested and called upon the assessee to submit the same but remained non complied. Finally the AO added the same to the income

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

14,00,000/- was taken from Nirmala Singh and Rs. 10,00,000/- from Ram Prit Singh and Rs. 10,00,000/-from Rohit Engicon Pvt. Ltd.. However no confirmations were filed. Thereafter the AO again requested and called upon the assessee to submit the same but remained non complied. Finally the AO added the same to the income

ITO, WARD-4(1), PATNA vs. JAGDISH RAY, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of revenue-ITA No

10(37) in the case of an assessee, being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, any income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" arising from the transfer of agricultural land, where— (i) such land is situate in any area referred to in item (a) or item (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2; (ii

PUNRASAR JUTE PARK LIMITED,PURNEA vs. CIT, PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

capital is received from this company. This fact demonstrates that reopening is based on vague reasons. 10. On the given set of facts, where the alleged unsecured loan/ cash creditors have already been examined by the ld. Assessing Officer in the regular assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act and there is no transaction at all between third party

I.T.O. vs. M/S KUMAR CONSTRUCLTION,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

ii) As regards the balance amount of Rs.33,56,405/- paid directly 0c$& the supplier, the remand report of the A.O. does not comment about the payment made in excess of Rs.20,000/-. The A.O. has mentioned in the remand report that no bills was produced for payment made to various persons for daily expenditure. (iii) As regards the disallowance

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. SH. SURESH , PATNA

ii) Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding Rupam Tower as Residential House and has erred in allowing deduction u/s 54 to the LTCG arising to the assessee. (iii) Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the claim of the assessee regarding the cost of construction of the Rupam Tower building. He also erred in accepting the actual period of construction

SHEKHAR NARAYAN,PATNA vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

10. For that the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi has failed to consider that the as per section 13 of service agreement of Mentors Eduserv (first party) with Mr. Shekhar Narayan (service provider) which is being reproduced here sub section 13.1-No Agency: This agreement is entered into on a 'principal to principal' basis & the parties are independent of each

SHEKHAR NARAYAN,PATNA vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

10. For that the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi has failed to consider that the as per section 13 of service agreement of Mentors Eduserv (first party) with Mr. Shekhar Narayan (service provider) which is being reproduced here sub section 13.1-No Agency: This agreement is entered into on a 'principal to principal' basis & the parties are independent of each

LAVANYA ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ITW WARD 2 (1) PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 342/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Lavanya Estates Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer, Kasim Colonydargah Road Ward 2(1), Mahendru, Sultanganj, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dakbanglow, Patna-800 001 Patna, Bihar-800 006 [Pan : Aadcl0333R] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

ii) ensure maximum objectivity; and (iii) to enforce checks and balances upon the powers of an Assessing Officer. 6.3 We have also gone through the proposal drafted by the Assessing Officer on 05.10.2017 for converting the case from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny. This reads as under: “….4. In this regard it may be mentioned here that the assessee

ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA vs. M/S SUN COMTECH PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

ii) are regarding deletion of the addition of ₹1,04,90,377/- by the Ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the fact that the assessee had booked contrived loss of commodity trading done in a synchronized manner to evade tax while ground no. (iii) is relating to the case being covered under the exceptional clause of the CBDT Circular for filing