ARUN KUMAR MANDAL,ARARIA vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (3), PURNEA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 119/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Arun Prasad Mondal,……………………………Appellant C/O. Shiv Narayan (Prop. Maa Dhaneshwari Khad Beej Bhandar), Bardha (Sikti), Araria-854333, Bihar [Pan:Bohpm1854A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….Respondent Ward-3(3), Purnea, Near Jail Chowk, Nh-31, Purnea-854301, Bihar

delay is condoned. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. Therefore, I have decided to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative and perusing the material available on record. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-assessee is an individual, who filed income tax return on 29.03.2018 disclosing

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

PUNAM DEVI,MUNGER vs. A.O.,NFAC, MUNGER

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

97,27,000/- by adding the cash deposits in the bank account and the assessment was made u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and as there was a delay of 613 days in filing the appeal, the delay was not condoned even though

RAJ KUMAR SINGH ,PATNA vs. ITO,WARD-6(4),PATNA , PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, Delhi, [the CIT(A)] erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant by confirming the assessment

SUNITA DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

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

Bench: this Hon'ble Tribunal. 7. That the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional, nor due to any negligence or laxity on my part, but due to bona fide reasons beyond my control: 8. That I submit that substantial justice should not be denied merely due to procedural delay and that the appeal may be decided on merits. 9. That I humbly request this Hon'ble Tribunal to condone the delay and allow my

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2. The sole ground of appeal raised by the assessee is reproduced as under: “1. Addition of Rs. 1,26,24,890/- in income is bad in law.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and is the proprietor of M/s Balajee Polly Packaging

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

condoned the delay in furnishing the application u/s 270AA of the Act because assessee has fulfilled all the conditions required for grant of immunity u/s 270AA of the Act. 06. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued, supporting the orders of the learned lower authorities. 07. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

condoned the delay in furnishing the application u/s 270AA of the Act because assessee has fulfilled all the conditions required for grant of immunity u/s 270AA of the Act. 06. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued, supporting the orders of the learned lower authorities. 07. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

condoned the delay in furnishing the application u/s 270AA of the Act because assessee has fulfilled all the conditions required for grant of immunity u/s 270AA of the Act. 06. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued, supporting the orders of the learned lower authorities. 07. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

condoned the delay in furnishing the application u/s 270AA of the Act because assessee has fulfilled all the conditions required for grant of immunity u/s 270AA of the Act. 06. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued, supporting the orders of the learned lower authorities. 07. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

condoned the delay in furnishing the application u/s 270AA of the Act because assessee has fulfilled all the conditions required for grant of immunity u/s 270AA of the Act. 06. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued, supporting the orders of the learned lower authorities. 07. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

condoned the delay in furnishing the application u/s 270AA of the Act because assessee has fulfilled all the conditions required for grant of immunity u/s 270AA of the Act. 06. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued, supporting the orders of the learned lower authorities. 07. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed

SATYA NARAYAN SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2015-16

condone the delay and admit this appeal for adjudication. 2 Satya Narayan Singh, AY: 2015-16, 3. In this case, the ld. Assessing Officer is seemed to have passed an order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. In this order, the Assessing Officer has assessed capital gains at Rs.1,34,97,643/-. Aggrieved with this case, the assessee approached

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

LALBABU PRASAD,SITAMARHI vs. DCIT, CIR-3, DARBHANGA, DARBHANGA

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

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 order passed by the authorities below are bad in law and fact. 2. For that the learned Addl. CIT(Appeal) is not justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte only

ASHUTOSH SHAH,PATNA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CIRCLE -4 , PATNA

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

Bench: This Bench. In This Connection, The Assessee Has Filed A Petition Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay. Upon Considering

delay of 143 days is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Brief Facts of the Case are that the assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration declaring income of ₹10,36,550/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for verifying large cash deposits during the demonetisation period. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment

RAVI LOCHAN SINGH,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PATNA

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

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

delay is hereby condoned and the matter is admitted for adjudication. 2. It is noticed that this is an appeal filed on 31.12.2020 and has gone through 10 days of hearing beginning from 02.11.2022 to the last one being on 01.01.2025. It is seen that either adjournments have been taken by the Ld. AR or none have attended on certain

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