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

iii) PCIT Vs. Sandip Kumar Parsottambhai Patel 457 ITR 368 (Gujarat) 07/03/2023 “Where Assessing Officer treated transactions in purchase and sale of share as sham transactions and sale proceeds of shares were treated as undisclosed income under section 68, since payments were received through account payee cheques and transactions were done through recognized stock exchange, and there was no evidence

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

iii) PCIT Vs. Sandip Kumar Parsottambhai Patel 457 ITR 368 (Gujarat) 07/03/2023 “Where Assessing Officer treated transactions in purchase and sale of share as sham transactions and sale proceeds of shares were treated as undisclosed income under section 68, since payments were received through account payee cheques and transactions were done through recognized stock exchange, and there was no evidence

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

iii) PCIT Vs. Sandip Kumar Parsottambhai Patel 457 ITR 368 (Gujarat) 07/03/2023 “Where Assessing Officer treated transactions in purchase and sale of share as sham transactions and sale proceeds of shares were treated as undisclosed income under section 68, since payments were received through account payee cheques and transactions were done through recognized stock exchange, and there was no evidence

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]

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 of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not submitted any details. 21. In the appellate proceedings

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]

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 of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not submitted any details. 21. In the appellate proceedings

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]

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 of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not submitted any details. 21. In the appellate proceedings

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]

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 of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not submitted any details. 21. In the appellate proceedings

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]

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 of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not submitted any details. 21. In the appellate proceedings

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

In the result, the appeal of revenue-ITA No

iii) Any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing. 2. ITA No.102/Pat/20 AY 2014-15 & CO No.01/Pat/2021 (ITA No. 102/Pat/20) AY 2014-15 Jagdish Ray Grounds raised by the assessee in the Cross Objection: 1. For that the instant appeal is completely bar by the Notification No. 17/2019 Dt.08th August 2019 issued by the Central Board

BAIJU ROY,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-4(2), PATNA

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

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

25,05,763/-. He assessed this amount under the head “capital gain” by observing as under:- 2 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Baiju Roy “In this regard, this office called for information u/s 133(6) from Land Acquisition Officer, Patna that the land in question was acquired under compulsory by the State Govt./Central Govt. The Land Acquisition Officer has reported

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)

25,79,791/- for Unsecured loans and ₹84,03,000/- for Sundry Creditors, aggregating to ₹1,9,82,781/- in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 25th November, 2019 without converting the limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny with the approval of the competent authority during the assessment proceedings and the assessment was framed as such

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

iii) is relating to the case being covered under the exceptional clause of the CBDT Circular for filing further appeal. The Ld. AO noted that information had been received from the Investigation Directorate, Kolkata regarding systematic evasion of tax by various clients/members of National Multi Commodity Exchange (in short ‘NMCE’) along with a report detailing modus operandi adopted for misusing

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

25-10-2011. The extract of order sheet entry of this date is being reproduced: “It is seen from the Books of A/c and the bank statements that payments to these persons, as mentioned in the list , for various expenses, in excess of Rs. 20,000/- has been made through bearer cheques Rs.20,000/-. He is required to explain