MURLACHAK KRISHAK SEWA SWALAMBI SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,NAWADA vs. ITO WARD 2(3), BIHARSHARIF

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

65,800/- under Section 69A of the Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a 147-day delay, finding the reasons for condonation

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

SRIRAM ENTERPRISES,PATNA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 76/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sriram Enterprises,………………………..........Appellant C/O. Nirmal & Associates, Nepali Kothi, Opposite Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001 [Pan:Aarfs8853J] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna,…………………………………..……………..Respondent, Bihar-800001 Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 5Th March, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 8Th, 2024 O R D E R

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of Government Civil Contractor & Sub-contractor and involved in the infrastructure development and maintenance such as roads, bridges, railways tunnels, etc. Income of Rs.4,25,44,130/- declared

NILU KUMARI,SARAN vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TX DPTT., DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condonation request and thus not hearing the matter on merits of the case. The Id appellate commissioner also erred in not considering the fact that the Appellant is a lady residing in a remote place where electricity, internet etc are not easily available. I.T.A. No.: 429/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Nilu Kumari. 8. For that the charging of interest under

RAVI BHUSHAN VERMA,BEGUSARAI vs. CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

65,000/-. The CPC, while processing the return by taking into account this value of Rs.66,60,000/ and determined the total income at Rs.73,46,170/- and tax payable at Rs.12,51,663/-. 4.2 The CPC is competent to make the adjustment based on the ITR and it appears that the appellant has filled in wrong figures

KUMAR SUMAN SINGH,PATNA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

65,000/-. Under these background fact, the total\nwithdrawal has been taken at Rs. 1,00,000/- (35,000+65000) against\nwhich the proof of expenses of approx. Rs. 67,000/- was available on\naccount of payment to LIC/ULIP. Therefore, balance Rs. 33,000/-\n(1,00,000-67,000) was left for personal expenses spread over 12 month.\nMeaning

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

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

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: Assessment Year 2013-14: “1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. assessing officer erred in assessing income at Rs.52,65,360/- against the returned income of Rs.11,01,554/- as well

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

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: Assessment Year 2013-14: “1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. assessing officer erred in assessing income at Rs.52,65,360/- against the returned income of Rs.11,01,554/- as well

PARSAMBI DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2 (2), PATNA

In the result, the Stay Application is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumars.A. No. 6/Pat/2024 (In Ita No. 403/Pat/2024) Assessment Year: 2015-2016 & I.T.A. No. 403/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Parsambi Design & Construction Private Limited,……………….………….……….Appellant G-1, Prasambi Saryug Vihar Apartment, Gosaitola, Patna-800013, Bihar [Pan:Aadcp2202M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…..………………………..Respondent Ward-2(2), Patna, District-Patna, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Narendra Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 21, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 21, 2024 O R D E R

delay, we deem it appropriate to condone it after going through the explanation of the assessee. 3. In the Stay Application, the assessee has sought ad-interim stay of the outstanding demand amounting to Rs.4,65,981/-. 4. With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. While considering the Stay Application, we find that

KUMAR SUMAN SINGH,PATNA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

delay of 132 days in filing the\ninstant appeals. The assessee has submitted applications for\ncondonation of delay citing reasonable grounds. After considering the\naverments made in the applications, we condone the delay.\n3. We also find that no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee.\nOn perusal of records, we notice that multiple dates of hearing were\nscheduled