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

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

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

MD. SABIR ALAM,KISHANGANJ vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

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

section 144B of the Act. 2. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR stated that there is delay of 77 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. On this aspect assessee had filed a petition praying for condonation of such delay. 3. We after perusing application filed by the revenue, find that there is a reasonable cause

SANTOSH KUMAR,SUPAUL vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (4), SAHARSA

79,60,305/- in the assessee's bank accounts, including ₹18,59,000/- during the demonetization period. The AO treated these deposits as unexplained and added them to the total income. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed.", "held": "The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's claim of illness. The Tribunal

MADHU DEVI,NAWADA vs. ITO, WARD 2 (3), BIHARSHARIF, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the proceeding initiated under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act is bad and illegal in view of the fact that the assessing officer has no reason to believe within the meaning

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

condone the delay. 5. For that Learned Assessing Officer has attached the business bank account of appellant. That hamper the business goodwill and credibility of the appellant in the market and company. Page 2 of 7 I.T.A. No.: 197/Pat/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Amresh Kumar. 6. That the appellant craves the leave of the appellate Jurisdiction to add, alter

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

RANJEET KUMAR,MUZAFFARPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed to decide it on merit. 4. This appeal was filed in 2022. It is to be decided on priority being an appeal filed against the order passed under section 263. The President of ITAT way back in 2016 has issued guidelines for deciding these appeals on priority because their pendency would