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

36, the date of service is communication of the order is 12.12.2022. However, the appeal was filed before the ITAT on 20.11.2025. Accordingly, the delay was computed for 1076 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay noted supra but the reason given in the condonation petition is not “reasonable cause” for not filing

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

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

section 144 of the Act. Through this order, he assessed long term capital gains of Rs. 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

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

RAJESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (2), GAYA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

36 there is wrong mention of delay which is only of 69 days. Considering the application for condonation of delay and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication

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

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

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

36 etc manually, petitioner is filing this appeal after coming to his knowledge that the appeal filed on 03/01/2024 is not visible on ITAT Portal, as regards delay if any, occurred in filing the appeal, may kindly be condoned and admit the Appeal keeping in view circumstances of the case. In view of the facts, you honour would be graciously

MITHILESH KUMAR AAKELA,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WAR-3(3), , AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 195/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Mithilesh Kumar Aakela,…………...….………Appellant S/O Mahendra Singh Pouthu, Aurangabad-824101, Bihar [Pan:Atepa0896R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-3(3), Aurangabad, 2Nd Floor, R.J. Palace, Raikashinath More, Gaya-823001, Bihar

36,732/-. After that, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee along with questionnaire and was required to upload his reply on or before 4.2.2019 but the assessee did not respond to the notice. Thereafter notice under section 143(2) was issued for compliance but the assessee did not file his return of income

CHINMASTIKA SIDHARTHA(JV),PATNA vs. CIT(A), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz)

delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from contract work. The appellant-assessee is a joint venture of Chinamastika Construction and Developers Pvt. Limited (mentioned as 1st party) and Siddharth Construction & Trading Pvt. Ltd. (mentioned as 2nd party) The assessee filed its return of income on 19.01.2016 showing total income

AMRESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA

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

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of appellant /assessee laid out expended for the purpose of the business shall be allowed in computing the income under the head profit from business and profession. But did not considered. 4. For that against the impugned order of CIT Appeal-1 assessee filed

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

KARAM AGRAMI AMAN AUR MAITRI SANSTAN,RANCHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), PATNA, PATNA

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Patna For Rejection Of Registration Under Section 12Ab(1)(B)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Said Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Patna Was Passed & Received On The Same Date By Mail. Therefore, The Appeal Should Have Been Instituted Within 60 Days From Receipt Of Such Order I.E., On Or Before 04.05.2024. I.T.A. No. 505/Pat/2024 Karam Agrami Aman Aur Maitri Sanstan

condoning of the said delay as under: “1. That an appeal has been preferred by the appellant before Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Patna for rejection of Registration under Section 12AB(1)(b)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The said Order

M/S BIHAR STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN. LTD.,PATNA vs. CIT (A), NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 was disposed of by an Order ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1047736388(1) dated 30-11-2022 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax M/s Bihar State Warehousing Corpn. Ltd.

delay is hereby condoned and (ITA No. 66/Pat/2023) appeal is admitted for adjudication along with (ITA No. 37/Pat/2023) which has been filed on time. 2. These two appeals are taken up for adjudication through a single order considering that both the appeals have been decided against the Appellant on similar grounds, of inadequate persuasion. ITA No. 66/Pat/2023 emanates from

M/S BIHAR STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN. LTD.,PATNA vs. CIT (A), NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 was disposed of by an Order ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1047736388(1) dated 30-11-2022 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax M/s Bihar State Warehousing Corpn. Ltd.

delay is hereby condoned and (ITA No. 66/Pat/2023) appeal is admitted for adjudication along with (ITA No. 37/Pat/2023) which has been filed on time. 2. These two appeals are taken up for adjudication through a single order considering that both the appeals have been decided against the Appellant on similar grounds, of inadequate persuasion. ITA No. 66/Pat/2023 emanates from

GANESH KUMAR KHEMKA,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 4(3), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.237/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ganesh Kumar Khemka..…………………...........................……….……Appellant B/46, Saraswati Apartment, S.P. Verma Road, Patna, Bihar – 800001. [Pan: Agwpk1726D] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Patna…....……...…………………………………....…..Respondent

condone the delay and admit this appeal for adjudication. 2. The present appeal emanates from an order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) dated 04.10.2023 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’]. 2.1 In this case, an addition of Rs.7,10,979/- has been made on account

M/S BIHAR STATE WAREHOUSING CORPN. LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, ["the CIT(A)] erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant by confirming the assessment order passed by the assistant Commissioner