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]

section 54F & 54EC of the Act is hereby deleted. As regards the addition on account of disallowance of claim of loan liability to the tune of Rs. 34,00,000/- On perusal of assessment order, it is observed that after availing several opportunities the appellant has not provided the reason why the name of M/s Rohit ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021

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]

section 54F & 54EC of the Act is hereby deleted. As regards the addition on account of disallowance of claim of loan liability to the tune of Rs. 34,00,000/- On perusal of assessment order, it is observed that after availing several opportunities the appellant has not provided the reason why the name of M/s Rohit ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021

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]

section 54F & 54EC of the Act is hereby deleted. As regards the addition on account of disallowance of claim of loan liability to the tune of Rs. 34,00,000/- On perusal of assessment order, it is observed that after availing several opportunities the appellant has not provided the reason why the name of M/s Rohit ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021

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

32,56,424/- 5. Sri Manish Kumar 1,00,000/- ___________________ Total: 1,43,10,424/- ___________________ 13. It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee has not shown this expense separately, in its audit report. Had the books of A/c not perused thoroughly, this fact would have gone unnoticed. As this expense is in the nature of rent, therefore

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

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

II. ITA No. 355/PAT/2025; AY 2018-19: “1. For that the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in passing the order without considering the materials available on record 2. For that the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in relying on Section 194J read with Section 44A for the purposes of holding that teaching activity

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

II. ITA No. 355/PAT/2025; AY 2018-19: “1. For that the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in passing the order without considering the materials available on record 2. For that the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in relying on Section 194J read with Section 44A for the purposes of holding that teaching activity

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

gain of transfer of lands as arose to the assesse. (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