MOTOR MACHINERUY TOOLS,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)]

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’). 2. It is noted that there is a delay of 49 days on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee has moved an application seeking condonation of the said delay on the ground that the appeal could not be filed

ACIT vs. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WELFARE HUMAN RESOURCES,

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed while the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2005-06, dated 07.09.2011, which is passed against the assessment order u/s 144/147 of the Act, dated 29.12.2010 of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Patna. The assessee has also filed Cross Objections. Initially, the appeal was decided by the ITAT vide order

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’) dated 28.02.2020 has been decided against the assessee in respect of several additions which have been spelt out in the grounds of appeal, which shall be extracted. It is seen that before the Ld. CIT(A) considerable number of opportunities were given to the assessee and it is a matter

VIKRAMSHILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LTD,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHAGALPUR

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’). 1.1 It is seen that the assessee tendered a claim for allowing the benefit of carrying forward of depreciation in the computation of income. The Ld. AO is seen to have dismissed this claim on the ground that such a claim was not presented in the computation of income. Thus

ACIT, PATNA vs. NEW ERA SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT WELFARE SOCIETY, PATNA

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’). 1.1 In this case, the Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 144 of the Act dated 03.12.2019. Through this assessment order, the Assessing Officer had held as under: I.T.A. No. 296/Pat/2023 New Era Social Development Welfare Society “Non-admissibility of claim of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of Income

GURUDWARA BAL LEELA MAINI SANGAT TRUST,PATNA vs. DC/AC, EXEMPTION, PATNA

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’), passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 07.02.2024. 1.1 In this case, the assessee is a charitable trust registered u/s 12A of the Act through an order dated 27.12.2019. The Ld. AO made the following two additions: (i) depreciation

MASUDAN TANTI,BHAGALPUR vs. CIT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14

depreciation for each of the relevant assessment years. (4) Where an eligible assessee declares profit for any previous year in accordance with the provisions of this section and he declares profit for any of the five assessment years relevant to the previous year succeeding such previous year not in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1), he shall

MAHUA COOPERATIVE COLD STORAGE LTD, MAHUA,VAISHALI vs. ADIT,CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2021-22 dated 20.06.2024. 2. The Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1) For that the order of the Authorities below are bad in law and fact. 2) For that the learned Addl. CIT(A) is not justified

M/S NORTH BIHAR DISTRIBUTOR,PURNEA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

250 of the Act is bad in law. 2. For that the ld. CIT(appeals) has not been justified in confirming the order passed by the ld. AO u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Act. 3. For that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not been justified in confirming the profit of Rs.3,73,827/- which is estimated

M/S NORTH BIHAR DISTRIBUTOR,PURNEA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

250 of the Act is bad in law. 2. For that the ld. CIT(appeals) has not been justified in confirming the order passed by the ld. AO u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Act. 3. For that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not been justified in confirming the profit of Rs.3,73,827/- which is estimated

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. SH. SURESH , PATNA

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act’), for Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee has filed cross-objection bearing C.O. No. 03/Pat/2022. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs.5,39,15,000/- on account of sale proceed of residential units as per section

RAKESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.85 & 86/Pat/2017 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-2, Patna [in short Ld. “CIT(A)”] both dated 03.03.2017 arising out of the assessment orders framed u/s 143(3) of the Act by DCIT/ACIT, circle- 4, Patna dated 31.03.2015 and 06.03.2016. Since facts are mostly I.T.A. No.85& 86/Pat/2017

RAKESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.85 & 86/Pat/2017 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-2, Patna [in short Ld. “CIT(A)”] both dated 03.03.2017 arising out of the assessment orders framed u/s 143(3) of the Act by DCIT/ACIT, circle- 4, Patna dated 31.03.2015 and 06.03.2016. Since facts are mostly I.T.A. No.85& 86/Pat/2017

ARUN CONSTRUCTION,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAGALPUR

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the AY 2009-10. 2. Since the issue(s) raised in these appeals are common and relate to same assessee, these are being heard together and being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The assessee has raised

ARUN CONSTRUCTION,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAGALPUR

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the AY 2009-10. 2. Since the issue(s) raised in these appeals are common and relate to same assessee, these are being heard together and being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. The assessee has raised