PUNRASAR JUTE PARK LIMITED,PURNEA vs. CIT, PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

10. On the given set of facts, where the alleged unsecured loan/ cash creditors have already been examined by the ld. Assessing Officer in the regular assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act and there is no transaction at all between third party, i.e. M/s. Ruby Tracom Pvt. Limited and assessee-company, the reopening proceedings cannot be held

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2014-15 by the Ld. assessing officer, viz. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Patna and that an assessment concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act cannot be assessed solely on the ground of change of opinion. I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2014-15 by the Ld. assessing officer, viz. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Patna and that an assessment concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act cannot be assessed solely on the ground of change of opinion. I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 2(1) PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2014-15 by the Ld. assessing officer, viz. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Patna and that an assessment concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act cannot be assessed solely on the ground of change of opinion. I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN.LTD.,PATNA vs. CIT (APPEAL), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2014-15 by the Ld. assessing officer, viz. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Patna and that an assessment concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act cannot be assessed solely on the ground of change of opinion. I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, COR-2, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2014-15 by the Ld. assessing officer, viz. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Patna and that an assessment concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act cannot be assessed solely on the ground of change of opinion. I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIR-2, P)ATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2014-15 by the Ld. assessing officer, viz. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Patna and that an assessment concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act cannot be assessed solely on the ground of change of opinion. I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024

ITO, WARD-2(1), BEGUSARAI, BEGUSARAI vs. MANISH KUMAR MOTANI, KHAGARIA, BIHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and CO of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajjpm4263D Co No. 02/Pat/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 442/Pat/2024 For A.Y. 2017-18) Ito, Ward 2(1), Begusarai Manish Kumar Motani, 3Rd Floor, G.S. Motors Building, Manish Kumar Motani, Hanuman Har Har Mahadev Chauk, Traders, Mill Road, Khagaria, Vs. Begusarai-851101, Begusarai, Khagaria, Bihari-851204 Bihar-851101 (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri A.K. Rastogi, S.K. Duta, Ars Revenue By : Shri A.H. Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

disallowance computed at the rate of 10% on Freight & wages expenses, Miscellaneous expenses, travelling and conveyance expenses etc. 6. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the first addition of ₹8,02,45,293/- made by the learned Assessing Officer under Section 40A(3

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

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

disallowed by the undersigned. After due consideration of facts & circumstances and verification of documents available in this office, the income of the assessee AOP/BOI is computed u/s 144 i.e. Best Judgment Assessment as Rs. 5,80,39,300/-.” 1.2 Aggrieved with this action, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A), who has in principle supported the action

BIHAR COMBINED ENTRANCE COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION BOARD,PATNA vs. ACIT(EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE), PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. The claim of exemption has, however, been disallowed on the ground inter alia that the assessee is not wholly and substantially financed by the Government and is also not involved in educational activities. The ld. Assessing Officer also disallowed payments made to printer amounting to Rs.2,85,85,395/- under section

BIHAR COMBINED ENTRANCE COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION BOARD,PATNA vs. ACIT(EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE), PATNA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. The claim of exemption has, however, been disallowed on the ground inter alia that the assessee is not wholly and substantially financed by the Government and is also not involved in educational activities. The ld. Assessing Officer also disallowed payments made to printer amounting to Rs.2,85,85,395/- under section

KUMAR ARUNODAYA,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6, PATNA [NEW – DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, PATNA], PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

10,00,000/-from Rohit Engicon Pvt. Ltd.. However no confirmations were filed. Thereafter the AO again requested and called upon the assessee to submit the same but remained non complied. Finally the AO added the same to the income of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not submitted any details. 21. In the appellate proceedings

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

10,00,000/-from Rohit Engicon Pvt. Ltd.. However no confirmations were filed. Thereafter the AO again requested and called upon the assessee to submit the same but remained non complied. Finally the AO added the same to the income of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not submitted any details. 21. In the appellate proceedings

KUMAR ARUNOSAYA,PATNA vs. A.O., CIRCLE-6, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

10,00,000/-from Rohit Engicon Pvt. Ltd.. However no confirmations were filed. Thereafter the AO again requested and called upon the assessee to submit the same but remained non complied. Finally the AO added the same to the income of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not submitted any details. 21. In the appellate proceedings

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

10,00,000/-from Rohit Engicon Pvt. Ltd.. However no confirmations were filed. Thereafter the AO again requested and called upon the assessee to submit the same but remained non complied. Finally the AO added the same to the income of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not submitted any details. 21. In the appellate proceedings

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

10,00,000/-from Rohit Engicon Pvt. Ltd.. However no confirmations were filed. Thereafter the AO again requested and called upon the assessee to submit the same but remained non complied. Finally the AO added the same to the income of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not submitted any details. 21. In the appellate proceedings

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

3. For that the CIT (Appeal) erred in passing ex-parte order confirming disallowance and addition of Rs.8125/- i.e. 10% of travelling & conveyance expenses of Rs. 81,950/- a sum of (Rs.62,988/- + 18,962/-) relevant with two business M/s Khan Traders and M/s Khan Brothers discussed, disallowed and added at Para B of the order passed by Ld. assessing

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

3. For that the CIT (Appeal) erred in passing ex-parte order confirming disallowance and addition of Rs.8125/- i.e. 10% of travelling & conveyance expenses of Rs. 81,950/- a sum of (Rs.62,988/- + 18,962/-) relevant with two business M/s Khan Traders and M/s Khan Brothers discussed, disallowed and added at Para B of the order passed by Ld. assessing