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

BIHAR STATE EDUCATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1, 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 on merits. 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 order of the ld. Assessing Officer as well as the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. I.T.A. No.: 16/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mintu Rani. 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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of revenue-ITA No

condone the said delay and admit the appeal for adjudication of the issues raised before us on merits. 4. First we take up the revenue’s appeal-ITA No. 102/Pat/20 for the AY 2015-15. 5. The only issue for our consideration is that whether the ld. CIT(A) erred in granting relief of Rs. 1

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

Section 144/ 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 14th December, 2017. 02. Registry is informed that the appeal is time barred for 5 days. Application for condonation of delay has been filed. The delay in filing of appeal is attributable to the person Raj Construction; A.Y. 2015-16 looking after the appellate work. An affidavit

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

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

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

1. The Appellant is a company "Bluechip Assets Private Limited" (as per meaning of Companies Act 2013) having Registered office at (407, Indrapuri, Keshri Nagar, Patna-800014). Previously our company known as Bluechip Advisory Private Limited. I.T.A. No.: 622/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Bluechip Asset Private Limited (Previously Known as Bluechip Advisory Pvt. Ltd.). 2. The Appellant

DUDHESHWAR GUPTA,ARRAH vs. ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, PATNA, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN , PATNA

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

Bench: 03/02/2024, But Could Not Be So File As I Was Bed Ridden Due To High Fever & I Was Advised For Complete Bed Rest. We Therefore Pray That Delay In Filing The Appeal Should Be Condoned & It Should Be Treated As Filed Within The Allowed Time. & For This Act Of Kindness, I Shall Ever Pray.”

1. In this case, the Registry has pointed out a delay of 37 days in filing of this appeal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of the said delay as under: “We enclose herewith an appeal u/s 253 of the I.T. Act 1961agaisnt the order under 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

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)

1. I Md. Yar Ali son of Afzal Hussain, 37, Makhatu, PO Handu, District Gushwa Jharkhand do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as follows 2. That am the Manager of Almahd Trust, having its office At QATI Nagar, Phulwari Shariff, Patna, Bihar and am authorised to swear thus affidavit That an order was passed by the Commissioner of Income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA, PATNA vs. SMT. SIPRA GUPTA, PATNA

condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal.\nThe first issue raised by the Revenue is against the order of learned\nCIT (A) quashing the notice u/s 148 of the Act.\n3.1. The facts in brief are that the learned AO reopened the case u/s\n147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 12.10.2017,\nafter obtaining

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

RAJEEV KUMAR,BIHAR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), CHAPRA, BIHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms indicated above

Bench: The Learned Cit(A), Where Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Penalty. Aggrieved, By The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) The Assessee Is In Appeal Before This Tribunal.

37, Taraiya, Marhowra Saran, Bihar – 841424, Chhapra [PAN: BLVPK5968C] ..…...…………….... Appellant vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Chhapra (Bihar) – 841424 ..…...…………….... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Shri Abhi Sarkar, Adv. Department represented by : Shri Rajat Datta, CIT-DR Date of concluding the hearing : 16.09.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 17.09.2025 O R D E R PER SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER These