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

condoning the delay and deciding the appeal on merit. (b) Whether capital gain on compensation received by the assessee for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is leviable in his hands or not. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income electronically on 15.09.2016 declaring total income of Rs.2,53,190/-.The assessee

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

MANOJ KUMAR DAS,BEGUSARAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: 19/07/2025. The Appeal Is Delayed By Around 37 Days. 4. That The Assessee States That The Reason For Delay Is That The Assessee Is Suffering From Hiv Aids & Is Constantly Under Treatment. Copy Of Medical Treatment Is Enclosed.

37 days. 4. That the assessee states that the reason for delay is that the assessee is suffering from HIV AIDS and is constantly under treatment. Copy of medical treatment is enclosed. 2 Manoj Kumar Das 5. That the petitioner states that the delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional but due to the genuine and bona

ALMAHAD TRUST ,PATNA vs. ITO EXEMPTION, WARD-1, PATNA , PATNA

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

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

10 (23C) (iiiad) of the Act notwithstanding the fact that the appellant derives income solely from carrying out of the educational activity and that the pre-conditions for claim of exemption are adequately satisfied. 6. For that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering the issue of applicability of section

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

BLUECHIP ASSET PRIVATE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS BLUECHIP ADVISORY PVT. LTD,PATNA vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay filling of appeal that one of the director "Shanti Devi (DIN-01935923) was ill from last year. Due to illness of the director, we have not proper reply to CIT(A) also. And they have passed order accordingly as we have not reply on time to CIT(A). 5. That the, The Director (Shanti Devi (DIN-01935923) has passed

RAJ CONSTRUCTION,KATIHAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHAGALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raj Construction Circle – 1(1), C/O Mahadev Ghosh, Bhagalpur, Advocate Vs. Bf-199, Salt Lake City, R.N. Plaza, R.B.S.S Kolkata-700064 Sahay Road, Bhagalpur, Bihar- 812001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajfr6306F Assessee By : Shri Mahadev Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2024

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 03. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal; - “1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC) has erred in passing the order confirming the disallowance of Sundry Creditors of the amount of 2,37,71,018 is arbitrary, unjustified

ANIL KUMAR,NALANDA vs. ITO, WARD- 2 (3), BIHARSHARIF

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 361/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anil Kumar National Faceless Assessment Centre M/S Raj Trading Company, Nfac, Delhi Harnaut, Nalanda, Patna-803110 Vs Bihar [Pan : Azopc268H] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

condone the delay in the interest of justice and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the appellant has sought adjournment on one pretext or the other and is not interested in making any submission in response to various grounds of appeal

NORTH BIHAR POWER DISTRUBUTION CO. LTD,PATNA vs. PR. CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

condone the delay and proceed to admit the appeal for hearing. 3. The assessee has taken four grounds of appeal which are reproduced as under: “1. Ground 1: The learned PCIT has erred in law, for issuance of notice [DIN & Notice No: ITBA/REV/F/REV1/2021-22/1 038620636(1) Dated 11/01/2022, attachment thereon] and passed order [DIN & Order No: ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2021- 22/1042288650(1) dated 31/03/2022

KOSHLESH VARIJ LOCHAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO WARD- 1 (1), MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed”

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

section 90/90A of the Act at Rs.2,19,610/- solely on account of delay in filing Form No. 67. 3. At the outset, the assessee submitted that he is working with Tata Tax Consultancy Services Limited (TCS), Mumbai and was sent to Budapest (Hungary) for the Project of TCS. He submitted that on foreign allowance of Rs.14