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

133(6) of the Act to both the loan creditor companies to which sufficient compliance was made along with the documents asked for by the ld. Assessing Officer. In nutshell, genuineness of the unsecured loan received by the assessee during the relevant financial year stood examined by the ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment proceeding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. SINCON INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 133(6) of the Act, but only one party replied. Finally, the\nLearned AO treated the said purchases as unproved and\nunsubstantiated purchases and added the same to the income of the\nassessee.\n2.2. In the appellate proceedings, the Learned CIT (A) allowed the\nappeal of the assessee by observing that the assessee submitted all the\nevidences

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

133(6) of the Act related to third party verification/ confirmation and that whether any independent inquiry has been conducted by the ld. Assessing Officer. 5. Ld. PCIT also referred to Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act observing as under:- “12. In the instant case, it is borne out of facts that not only did the assessee fail

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL , PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

133(6) of the Act related to third party verification/ confirmation and that whether any independent inquiry has been conducted by the ld. Assessing Officer. 5. Ld. PCIT also referred to Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act observing as under:- “12. In the instant case, it is borne out of facts that not only did the assessee fail

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

133(6) of the Act related to third party verification/ confirmation and that whether any independent inquiry has been conducted by the ld. Assessing Officer. 5. Ld. PCIT also referred to Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act observing as under:- “12. In the instant case, it is borne out of facts that not only did the assessee fail

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

133(6) of the Act related to third party verification/ confirmation and that whether any independent inquiry has been conducted by the ld. Assessing Officer. 5. Ld. PCIT also referred to Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act observing as under:- “12. In the instant case, it is borne out of facts that not only did the assessee fail

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

133(6) of the Act related to third party verification/ confirmation and that whether any independent inquiry has been conducted by the ld. Assessing Officer. 5. Ld. PCIT also referred to Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act observing as under:- “12. In the instant case, it is borne out of facts that not only did the assessee fail

I.T.O. vs. M/S KUMAR CONSTRUCLTION,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 133(6). However, the cash book of the assessee made entry of the same amount as cash receipts. In response to the query during the assessment proceeding the assessee submitted as under: "Various cheques are issued in the name of working staff of the concern and taken in the cash book to meet various expenditure related to business. Hence

RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,BIROLI BAZAR vs. ITO WARD 3(1) PURNEA, PURNIA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.422/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rajendra Agrawal.……………….....…..…………………....Appellant New Sipahi Tola, Maranga Road, Bihar – 85301. [Pan: Aqhpa2439E] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Purnia....….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None 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 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 18 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause Which Was Beyond The Control Of The Assessee & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Engaged In Farming Activities. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened

133(6) of the Act to circle officer in order to collect additional information about the agricultural land. In response, the assessee submitted land revenue receipt, land ownership certificate etc. but the assessee failed to furnish details of invoices or bills for fertilizers, pesticides and sale proceeds from agricultural produce. Due to lack of supporting documents and non-availability

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. YASHI FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 'professional and technical services.' The Ld. AO noted that, there was discrepancy in the reply of the assessee and the amount claimed in the profit and loss account and required further details; which were however, not filed. Therefore, professional and technical services expenses and society maintenance expenses were disallowed and the total income was assessed

DINA NATH YADAV,PATNA vs. ITO WARD - 4(2), PATNA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUAMR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

133(6) of the Act revealed that the said land was within the municipal area even though the said land was agricultural in nature. Finally, it has been recorded that the Ld. AO issued summons u/s 131 of the Act to the District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna and his statement under oath was recorded. Through this statement, the said Officer

ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA vs. M/S SUN COMTECH PVT LTD, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

133(6). The A.O. has not mentioned any variation or discrepancy between the copies of account as submitted by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings and as provided by NSME, Ahmedabad. Thereafter while bringing on record and mentioning all these details and reproducing the same in the assessment order, the A.O. has concluded that the nature of intraday

SEEMA SRIVASTAVA,PATNA vs. ITO,DC/AC-6, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

6. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in ignoring the legislative intent behind provisions of sections 54 and 54F which are beneficial provisions promoting purchase/construction of residential houses, hence, liberal, pragmatic interpretation should be taken to the provisions and technical errors should not deprive assessee of legitimate claim of deduction/ exemption particularly in the light of circular

ITO, WARD-2(1), BEGUSARAI vs. SHRI PREM CHAND KESHRI, LAKHISARAI

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rajesh Kumar

Section 40A(3) of the Act and submission made by AR of the assessee which revealed that the assessee has violated the provision in making the payment against the purchase of the goods only to the amount of Page 2 of 4 I.T.A. No.: 99/PAT/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Prem Chand Keshri. Rs. 150000/- as detailed above

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 PATNA, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

6. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and submitted that in compliance to the return filed u/s 153A of the Act, assessee has submitted tax audit report u/s 44AB of the Act and also furnished audit report on form 10CCB for by claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act and has fulfilled all the conditions required

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

6. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and submitted that in compliance to the return filed u/s 153A of the Act, assessee has submitted tax audit report u/s 44AB of the Act and also furnished audit report on form 10CCB for by claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act and has fulfilled all the conditions required

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, PATNA, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

6. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and submitted that in compliance to the return filed u/s 153A of the Act, assessee has submitted tax audit report u/s 44AB of the Act and also furnished audit report on form 10CCB for by claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act and has fulfilled all the conditions required

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,PATNA, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

6. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and submitted that in compliance to the return filed u/s 153A of the Act, assessee has submitted tax audit report u/s 44AB of the Act and also furnished audit report on form 10CCB for by claiming deduction u/s 80IA of the Act and has fulfilled all the conditions required