DHARMENDRA KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 4(2), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 709/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Dharmendra Kumar,…………………...….………Appellant E/74, Krishna Building, Patliputra Road, Patna-800013, Bihar [Pan:Anppk4627D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-4(2), Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 4Th Floor, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-800001, Bihar

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assesese filed his return of income electronically on 29.03.2018 showing total income of Rs.4,82,400/- after claiming deduction

RUBAN PATLIPUTRA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. CIT, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 653/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Ruban Patliputra Hospital Private Limited,……………………………………….………Appellant 19, Patliputra Colony, Patna-800013, Bihar [Pan:Aafcr2222R] -Vs.- Nfac,…………………………………………….…...Respondent New Delhi, Appearances By: Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Sm. Rinku Singh, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 26, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in running Nursing Homes and Emergency Services and sale of medicine. The assessee filed its return of income electronically on 29.11.2014 declaring NIL income claiming loss at Rs.34,64,44,303/-. The return of income was revised by the assessee

MAHANT PANDEY,ROHTAS 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

deducted was also treated as unexplained receipts and an amount of ₹56,784/- being 8% of the total contract receipts was treated as profit of the assessee and added to the income of the assessee. A sum of ₹8,08,000/- being cash payments for goods and services purchased from Chetmani Ornaments (P) Ltd. was also added as unexplained expenditure

MAHANT PANDEY,ROHTAS 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

deducted was also treated as unexplained receipts and an amount of ₹56,784/- being 8% of the total contract receipts was treated as profit of the assessee and added to the income of the assessee. A sum of ₹8,08,000/- being cash payments for goods and services purchased from Chetmani Ornaments (P) Ltd. was also added as unexplained expenditure

ITO, WARD-2(1), BEGUSARAI, BEGUSARAI vs. MANISH KUMAR MOTANI, KHAGARIA, BIHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and CO of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajjpm4263D Co No. 02/Pat/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 442/Pat/2024 For A.Y. 2017-18) Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri A.K. Rastogi, S.K. Duta, Ars Revenue By : Shri A.H. Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

condone the delay and admit the cross objection for adjudication. 4. The only issue raised by the Revenue in the various grounds of appeal is against the order of learned CIT (A) deleting the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer of ₹8,02,45,293/-, which was in violation to the Provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Income

LAXMAN SHARMA,PATNA vs. ITO WARD4(5), PATNA

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

condone the delay and admit these appeals for adjudication. 2. These two appeals emanate from the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereafter ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’], passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (hereafter ‘the Act’), dated 01.01.2024 (ITA No. 336/Pat/2024) and 02.01.2024 (ITA No.337/Pat/2024). 2.1 For the sake of convenience ITA No. 336/Pat/2024

LAXMAN SHARMA,PATNA vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, these two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

condone the delay and admit these appeals for adjudication. 2. These two appeals emanate from the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereafter ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’], passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (hereafter ‘the Act’), dated 01.01.2024 (ITA No. 336/Pat/2024) and 02.01.2024 (ITA No.337/Pat/2024). 2.1 For the sake of convenience ITA No. 336/Pat/2024

JCIT(IN-SITU), CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. TECHNOCULTURE BUILDING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes\nand Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

condoning the delay. Since\nboth the appeals have inter-connected issues hence, they are being heard\ntogether for simultaneous adjudication.\n\n2. These appeals arise from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 (hereafter “the Act”), passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax\n(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order dated\n12.12.2024

SHASHI KRISHNA EDUCATIONAL AVAM WELFARE SOCIETY,PATNA vs. AO, PATNA

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

condone the delay in filing Form 10B.\n\n5.3 As regard appellant's appeal against taxing the entire receipts instead\nof taxing the income over expenditure, it is stated that facts involved in the\nissue is that the appellant had disclosed gross receipts of Rs.1,27,76,341/-\nin the ITR and claimed expenses

SUJEET KUMAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

delay is hereby condoned and this appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. In this case, the appeal arises from order dated 08.03.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’). In this case, the Ld. AO passed

RANI DEVI,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

deduction claimed u/s 80C may be allowed on the basis of documentary evidence available with the appellant”. 3. The Registry has informed that the appeal is time barred by 212 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. However, the assessee filed a petition before the ITAT dated 30th June, 2025 in support of condonation of delay

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR vs. M/S UTTAR BIHAR GRAMIN BANK, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 43,67,25,641/- made

ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRABHAT,ARRAH vs. PCIT-1, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the order of the Id. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Patna, is bad both

PRERNA AGENCY PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

delay is hereby condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee M/s Prerna Agency pvt. Ltd. derived income from share trading, filed its return of income for AY 2013-14, and assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 29.02.2016. Subsequently on an information received from investigation wing that M/s Prerna Agency

SARIKA CHOUDHARY,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

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

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

condoned the limitation period which was applicable under any law from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 due to COVID- 19 Pandemic and the limitation was to be commenced from 14.04.2022 for filing the appeal. The present appeal is delayed by almost 22 months. The reason for the delay is explained as the father of the assessee is a cardiac patient who required

AJAY KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (3), PATNA, PATNA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. I.T.A. No.: 392/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ajay Kumar. 2. No grounds of appeal have been filed. However, in Form No. 35, the assessee filed appeal raising the following grounds of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A): “1. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR vs. M/S ASHA REALTY DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.\n\n3.\nThe first issue raised by the Revenue is against the deletion of addition of ₹3,96,94,221/- by the learned CIT (A) as made by the learned AO in respect of closing stock calculated under Percentage Completion Method by the learned AO.\n\n3.1. The facts in brief

RAVINDRA KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), PATNA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

deduction of tax on individual pan. The return of the appellant was processed by CPC and 2 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Rabindra Kumar order under section 143 (1) (a) Was passed. In the intimation, the whole of the contract receipt were taken as income under other source and accordingly levied tax of Rs.7,17,83,917/- against the admitted liability