ALOK KUMAR,ARRAH vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), ARRAH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

72 Decimal at Mouza Anaith at Arrah was put on sale by its Power of Attorney holder Shri Mahesh Kumar Sharma. This Tribunal is not adjudicated any issue regarding genuineness of that sale nor it is deciding the title. It is only deciding the tax implication, if any, fallen in the hands of Shri Alok Kumar by virtue of that

RANESH SINHA,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PATNA

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. This appeal was presented before the Tribunal on 9th June, 2020. It ought to have been filed within sixty (60) days of receipt of the order but it is time barred by seventy two (72) days. Before the expiry of limitation

MAHENDRA PRASAD,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, ITD, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Gains from I.T.A. No.: 717/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Mahendra Prasad. Business or Profession" and income of Rs. 5,00,466/- under the head "Income from Other Sources". The assessee had offered logistics services (transport) to the Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. in Motihari and the Bihar State Warehousing Corporation in Patna, in addition to engaging in wholesale