MAHANT PANDEY,ROHTAS vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS was also deducted was also treated as unexplained receipts and an amount of ₹56,784/- being 8% of the total contract receipts was treated as profit of the assessee and added to the income of the assessee. A sum of ₹8,08,000/- being cash payments for goods and services purchased from Chetmani Ornaments (P) Ltd. was also added

MAHANT PANDEY,ROHTAS vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

TDS was also deducted was also treated as unexplained receipts and an amount of ₹56,784/- being 8% of the total contract receipts was treated as profit of the assessee and added to the income of the assessee. A sum of ₹8,08,000/- being cash payments for goods and services purchased from Chetmani Ornaments (P) Ltd. was also added

PRERNA AGENCY PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

delay is hereby condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee M/s Prerna Agency pvt. Ltd. derived income from share trading, filed its return of income for AY 2013-14, and assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 29.02.2016. Subsequently on an information received from investigation wing that M/s Prerna Agency

SARIKA CHOUDHARY,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

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

Bench: Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

condoned the limitation period which was applicable under any law from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 due to COVID- 19 Pandemic and the limitation was to be commenced from 14.04.2022 for filing the appeal. The present appeal is delayed by almost 22 months. The reason for the delay is explained as the father of the assessee is a cardiac patient who required

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

RAVINDRA KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), PATNA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS were deducted on individual PAN, therefore, the assessee had filed statement of deduction of tax on individual pan. The return of the appellant was processed by CPC and 2 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Rabindra Kumar order under section 143 (1) (a) Was passed. In the intimation, the whole of the contract receipt were taken as income under other source

DEEPAK SHRAWAN BUDHIA,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF I.T., PATNA-1, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

condone the delay and taking up for adjudication. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Ld. Pr.CIT called the assessment record and observed that order passed by the AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act was completed on 19.03.2023 assessed the total income at Rs. 68,24,861/- in which he observed

DINESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD (5), PATNA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.427/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dinesh Kumar……………………….....…..…………………....Appellant C/O Bhurendra Prasad, Near B D Public School, Buddha Colony, Patna – 800001. [Pan: Bxbpk1456M] Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Patna…………. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shailendra Sinha, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 28, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-17 By Showing Total Income Of Rs.2,71,810/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass Followed By Notices Issued U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Asked The Assessee To Produce Books Of Accounts, Ledger, Cash Book Etc. Before Him But The Assessee Did Not Comply. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer After Verification Of Return Of Income Found That The Assessee Had Filed Balance Sheet Showing Gross Total Income Of Rs.36,00,712/- & The Assessee Incurred Miscellaneous

TDS was deducted. As the assessee was shown gross receipts of Rs.3600712/-, therefore, the difference of Rs.425212/- was treated as income from business and profession. The Assessing Officer also disallowed the unsecured loan of Rs.1445600/- and treated the same as income from other sources. Further, the Assessing Officer denied the claim under chapter VIA of Rs.150000/- and added back into

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

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

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

TDS has been deducted and the same is reflected in the form 26AS. The appellant is only the CSP agent duly authorized. 5. For that the nature of deposit and withdrawals are all banking transactions as the Assessee has been working as an agent and for furtherance of banking activities of its parent bank State Bank of India to provide

MOHAMMAD TANWEER ALI IMAM,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 5(1), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Mohammad Tanweer Ali Imam, Income Tax Officer, Darul Aman Po Bv College, Ward 5(1), Patna Samanpura, Rajabazar, Vs. Patna-800014 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanpi1722J Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2025

condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal. 04. The assessee has assailed the assessment order passed u/s 144 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 29.03.2022, assessing the income at ₹1,10,00,000/-. 05. The facts in brief are that the assessee has not filed any return of income. As per information received

SHIV SHANKAR SINGH CONTRACT PVT LTD,GOPALGANJ vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFAPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

TDS), Muzaffarpur ..........…..….................... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate Department represented by : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 09.01.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 14.01.2025 O R D E R PER BENCH 1. This is a batch of 4 appeals which are delayed by 39 days. For the sake of convenience

SHIV SHANKAR SINGH CONTRACT PVT LTD,GOPALGANJ vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFAPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

TDS), Muzaffarpur ..........…..….................... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate Department represented by : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 09.01.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 14.01.2025 O R D E R PER BENCH 1. This is a batch of 4 appeals which are delayed by 39 days. For the sake of convenience

SHIV SHANKAR SINGH CONTRACT PVT LTD,GOPALGANJ vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFAPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

TDS), Muzaffarpur ..........…..….................... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate Department represented by : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 09.01.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 14.01.2025 O R D E R PER BENCH 1. This is a batch of 4 appeals which are delayed by 39 days. For the sake of convenience

SHIV SHANKAR SINGH CONTRACT PVT LTD,GOPALGANJ vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFAPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

TDS), Muzaffarpur ..........…..….................... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate Department represented by : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 09.01.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 14.01.2025 O R D E R PER BENCH 1. This is a batch of 4 appeals which are delayed by 39 days. For the sake of convenience

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

DAKSHIN BIHAR GRAMIN BANK,KURWA BRANCH vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed”

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

condoned. We are not convinced with the above submission of the Ld. Counsel. The assessee will have to explain the cause of delay in the application/hearing in respect of the appeals, if any, the assessee is contemplating to file. However, it is directed that the time consumed by the assessee in prosecuting the present litigation i.e. from the date