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

M/S NORTH BIHAR DISTRIBUTOR,PURNEA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay in filing the appeal before us and take up the matter for adjudication. 4. Grounds taken by the assessee are:- (a) in ITA No. 48/Pat/2020: 1. For that the appellate order passed u/s. 250 of the Act is bad in law. 2. For that the ld. CIT(appeals) has not been justified in confirming the order passed

M/S NORTH BIHAR DISTRIBUTOR,PURNEA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

condone the delay in filing the appeal before us and take up the matter for adjudication. 4. Grounds taken by the assessee are:- (a) in ITA No. 48/Pat/2020: 1. For that the appellate order passed u/s. 250 of the Act is bad in law. 2. For that the ld. CIT(appeals) has not been justified in confirming the order passed

AGLOWMED LIMITED,PATNA vs. ADIT(CPC), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

condoned and appeal is admitted. 4. At the outset, ld. DR submitted that the grounds of appeal relating to disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in deposit of Employees’ Contribution of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance (PF & ESI) totaling to Rs.3,82,386/-. The issue relating to ground taken by the assessee

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

condoned the delay in furnishing the application u/s 270AA of the Act because assessee has fulfilled all the conditions required for grant of immunity u/s 270AA of the Act. 06. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued, supporting the orders of the learned lower authorities. 07. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

condoned the delay in furnishing the application u/s 270AA of the Act because assessee has fulfilled all the conditions required for grant of immunity u/s 270AA of the Act. 06. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued, supporting the orders of the learned lower authorities. 07. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

condoned the delay in furnishing the application u/s 270AA of the Act because assessee has fulfilled all the conditions required for grant of immunity u/s 270AA of the Act. 06. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued, supporting the orders of the learned lower authorities. 07. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

condoned the delay in furnishing the application u/s 270AA of the Act because assessee has fulfilled all the conditions required for grant of immunity u/s 270AA of the Act. 06. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued, supporting the orders of the learned lower authorities. 07. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

condoned the delay in furnishing the application u/s 270AA of the Act because assessee has fulfilled all the conditions required for grant of immunity u/s 270AA of the Act. 06. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued, supporting the orders of the learned lower authorities. 07. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

condoned the delay in furnishing the application u/s 270AA of the Act because assessee has fulfilled all the conditions required for grant of immunity u/s 270AA of the Act. 06. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued, supporting the orders of the learned lower authorities. 07. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed

K.B. TECHNIC PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. DC/ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

2\nITA No. 130/PAT/2025\nK.B. Technic Private Limited; A.Y. 2011-12\nSir,\nThe Ld. CIT(A) has passed order in Appeal No.CIT(A), Patna-1/10482/2018-19\non 27/09/2023. It is stated that on 19/02/2025, an order u/s 271(1)(c) for\nA.Y.2011-12, was uploaded on the e-portal of the assessee under the tab For\nyour action' that the petitioner

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. I.T.A. No.: 630/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shardindu Prasad Singh. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal, which are argumentative: “A. For that, on the fact and circumstances of the case, this 2nd appeal arises against an arbitrary, baseless, hypothetical and presumptive incomplete

ANIL KUMAR,WEST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), BETTIAH

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit both the appeals for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 261/PAT/2025: “1. For that the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [the NFAC] erred on facts and in law in partly allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, vide order passed under section

ANIL KUMAR,WEST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), BETTIAH

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit both the appeals for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: I. ITA No. 261/PAT/2025: “1. For that the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [the NFAC] erred on facts and in law in partly allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, vide order passed under section

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

RENU SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-5(5), 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. 225/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Renu Singh,………………………………..…………Appellant Akashwani Road, Opp. Vishal Apptt., Khajpura, Rajabazar, Shastri Nagar, Patna-800014, Bihar [Pan:Bevps2633R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…..………………………...Respondent Ward-5(5), Patna, Bihar Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ajay Kr. Shukla, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 10, 2024 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. The assessee is an individual and has invested in share trading for an amount of Rs.1,14,13,751/- for the Financial Year 2012-13. The assessee did not file any return of income. A notice under section 147 of the Act was issued, but the assessee did not file any return of income. Thereafter

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.

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. On the last date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee but it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication, with the help of Ld. DR. 2.1 This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), passed

ANIL KUMAR SAH,BANKA vs. ITO, WD-1(4), BHAGALPUR, BHAGALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 324/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Anil Kumar Sah,………………………....….………Appellant Near Bari Durga Mandir, Kajreli Road, Amarpur, Dist. Banka-813101, Bihar [Pan:Aqgps8735A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-1(4), Bhagalpur, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, R.N. Plaza, R B S S Road, Bhagalpur-812001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 29, 2025 O R D E R

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income on 10.12.2015 showing total income of Rs.2.88,040/-. The assessee has shown his income from LIC commission, New India Insurance Company & interest income. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T Act. 1961. Later the case

DINESH BARANWAL,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), MOTIHARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.593/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Dinesh Baranwal……………….....…..…………………....Appellant C/ M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, C. R Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kol-72. [Pan: Adkpg6603N] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Motihari…...……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 24 , 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.05.2024 Passed By The Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 57 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons Or Such Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Said Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Dealer Of A Telecom Service Operator, Namely M/S Unitech Wireless Tamil Nadu Pvt.

2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 57 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition explaining the reasons or such delay. After considering the submissions and materials on record, we are satisfied that there was reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly