THE SAMASTIPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SAMASTIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) provided various opportunities to the assessee as per para 4 of his order, 7 times opportunities were provided but the assessee did not respond any of the notices. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) after relying on various judgments decided the issue on 10.12.2022 on the basis of material available on record and upheld the order of the AO. 4. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the

iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice- oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been

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 by the AO u/s 36(1

SARVAJANIK EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY,GUGULDIH vs. COMMISSIONER OF IMCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

36 on the portal and thereafter the “Submit” button was clicked; however, no acknowledgement could be generated on the portal. After a gap of ITA No.: 44/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: NA Sarvajanik Education and Welfare Society. around 20 days, the portal was checked for the appeal number but nothing was available. After a week again the portal was again checked

DIPAK KUMAR SINGH & SONS HUF,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2), PATNA

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the delay was on account of ignorance of law and the assessee was alerted for filing the appeal only when they received a notice proposing levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the issue of delayed filing with the help of several authorities on the subject and has declined to condone the said delay due to which the appeal was dismissed. 3.1 Further aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is

36,76,169/-. Aggrieved with this action, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed as the Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone a delay of 778 days in filing of the said appeal. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the delay was on account of ignorance of law and the assessee was alerted

DCIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, PATNA vs. M/S DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL TRUST, PATNA

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

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

delay in filing of the appeals is hereby condoned and these three matters are admitted for adjudication. 1.1 This is a batch of three appeals having additions made on same issue for all the three years under consideration. Accordingly, these three matters are being disposed of by a single order. For the sake of convenience, the appeal

DCIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, PATNA vs. M/S DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL TRUST, PATNA

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

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

delay in filing of the appeals is hereby condoned and these three matters are admitted for adjudication. 1.1 This is a batch of three appeals having additions made on same issue for all the three years under consideration. Accordingly, these three matters are being disposed of by a single order. For the sake of convenience, the appeal

DCIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, PATNA vs. M/S DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL TRUST, PATNA

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

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

delay in filing of the appeals is hereby condoned and these three matters are admitted for adjudication. 1.1 This is a batch of three appeals having additions made on same issue for all the three years under consideration. Accordingly, these three matters are being disposed of by a single order. For the sake of convenience, the appeal

M/S PARWATI EDUCATIONAL & WELFARE TRUST,PATNA vs. PR.CIT-CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma)

condone the delay of 25 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. That the Hon'ble PCIT, Patna erred in appreciating the facts properly. 2. That the Hon'ble PCIT erred in treating the assessment order passed by the learned assessing officer

M/S PARWATI EDUCATIONAL & WELFARE TRUST,PATNA vs. PR.CIT-CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma)

condone the delay of 25 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: Assessment Year 2011-12: “1. That the Hon'ble PCIT, Patna erred in appreciating the facts properly. 2. That the Hon'ble PCIT erred in treating the assessment order passed by the learned assessing officer

ITO, WARD-4(1), PATNA vs. JAGDISH RAY, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of revenue-ITA No

36 Dt.2S.10.2016 of CBDT and decided -that the case of the Appellant/Assessee is covered under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as acquired landed property was agriculture land besides application of Section 96 of the RFCTLAAR Act, 2013 as referred in the said Circular No.36. 3. For that the Second ground of appeal is contrary in itself