MINTU RANI,PATNA vs. ASSESSEMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay was not condoned and the appeal was dismissed. 5. On perusal of the appellate order it is noticed that while the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed non-compliance on the part of the assessee as the notices sent by e-mail were not complied with but he has not adjudicated the appeal on merit. In this respect

SAROJ DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (4), PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly 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 Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the Assessment Order dated 16.12.2019 as passed u/s 143(3) read

MADHURI DEVI,SAHARSA vs. ITO WARD- 3 (4), SAHARSA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that, The Learned Assessing Officer, being ITO, Ward-3(4), Saharsa (Here in after called the "AO") has erred in Assessing the appellant on a total Income of Rs 7001665/- as against

ANUP KUMAR HUF,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENT. CIR-1, PATNA, 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. 192/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Anup Kumar Huf,…………………...….………Appellant 4A, Narayan Nilayam Apartment, Road No. 6 Rajendra Nagar, Patna-800016 Bihar [Pan:Aahha5422R] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax....Respondent Central Circle-1, Patna

delay is condoned. 4. The facts in brief are that a survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were carried out at the business premises of M/s. Sona Gold Agrochem Pvt. Ltd., Patna. The group consisted of a number of companies which are in the business of manufacturer of poultry feed and rice. The group of concerns

SHANKAR,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condonation of delay and also because of lack of computer literacy. We note that section 250(6) of the Act casts a duty upon the Ld. CIT(A) to pass an order in appeal which should state the points for determination and a decision as well as the reason for arriving at such decision. We note that in Ajji Basha

BIRJU KUMAR,VAISHALI vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (3), VAISHALI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay of 294 days and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [the NFAC] erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant, vide order passed under section

ASHA SINHA,NALANDA vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), BIHARSHARIF

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly 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: I.T.A. No.: 5/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Asha Sinha. “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in deciding appeal ex-parte and confirming the addition of Rs.71,41,262/- made

VIDYA SAGAR SINGH HUF THROUGH KARTA SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & 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: I.T.A. No.: 8/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vidya Sagar Singh HUF Through Karta Santosh Kumar Singh. “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in deciding appeal ex-parte and confirming the addition

SHARDINDU PRASAD SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay in filing of appeal is condoned. 7.2. As per definition of 'transfer in relation to a capital asset, not only sale or exchange or relinquishment of asset or extinguishment of rights etc, but allowing of possession of any immovable property as referred to in Sec.53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is also included in the definition of transfer

ITO, W-1(3), VAISHALI, HAJIPUR vs. SHIV SHARAN SINGH, HAJIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law the Commissioner of Income (Appeal)(NFAC) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,06,37,721/-made

RAJ KUMAR SINGH ,PATNA vs. ITO,WARD-6(4),PATNA , PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi, [the CIT(A)] erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant by confirming the assessment

PANKAJ JAISWAL,KHAGARIA vs. ITO, WARD-2(10, BEGUSARAI

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

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No.80/Pat/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pankaj Jaiswal.…………………………………….……………………………………..………..Appellant Kachari Road, In Front Of Ib Ward No.15, Khagaria-851204.. [Pan :Ahypj1958M] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Begusarai..…....…………………………………………………..……Respondent

delay is condoned. 3. The assessee in this present case is an individual who filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 29.08.2011 declaring a total income of Rs.1,94,130/-. As per the information available with the A.O, the assessee haf maintained two bank accounts with ICICI Bank, one with Khagaria Branch and the other with

KRIPA SHANKER,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & 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 Learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts. 2. For that the claim of the Learned CIT(A) that the appellant has not made any compliance to the hearing

MADHU DEVI,NAWADA vs. ITO, WARD 2 (3), BIHARSHARIF, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & 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 proceeding initiated under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act is bad and illegal in view of the fact that the assessing officer has no reason to believe within the meaning

PRAKASH GUPTA,GOPALGANJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2 (4), SIWAN

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & 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: I.T.A. No.: 206/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prakash Gupta. “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) gravely erred in confirming the addition

M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits. P a g e 1 | 71 Assessment Year : 2010 -2011 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal” “1. For that the CIT(A) has erred in affirming the order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s.143(3)/147 wherein the Assessing Officer has assessed