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 139, in the manner specified for furnishing such return of income. We find that coordinate bench in 42 Hertz Software India (P.) Ltd v. ACIT [2022] 139 taxmann.com 448 (Bangalore – Trib.) wherein following its earlier order in the case of Ms. Brinda Rama Krishna v.ITO [2022] 135 taxmann.com 358 (Bang – Trib) it was held that “one of the requirements

M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts_ necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: ^[Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation to any asset (including financial interest

PREM KUMAR GOUTAM,LAKHISARAI vs. ITO WARD- 2 (5), LAKHISARAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

139(4) on 29.03.2018 under section 44AD of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has disclosed gross receipts of Rs.49,45,000/- and offered an income @ 8% amounting to Rs.3,95,600/-. He claimed deduction under section 80C of Rs.25,120/- and shown total income at Rs.3,70,480/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment

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]

139(9) of the Act and 292B of the Act, the AO has treated the return of income as invalid which is wrong ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya and in defense, he relied on certain decisions namely PCIT Vs Silver Line 363 ITR 465 (Delhi) and Sapthagiri

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]

139(9) of the Act and 292B of the Act, the AO has treated the return of income as invalid which is wrong ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya and in defense, he relied on certain decisions namely PCIT Vs Silver Line 363 ITR 465 (Delhi) and Sapthagiri

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]

139(9) of the Act and 292B of the Act, the AO has treated the return of income as invalid which is wrong ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya and in defense, he relied on certain decisions namely PCIT Vs Silver Line 363 ITR 465 (Delhi) and Sapthagiri

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]

139(9) of the Act and 292B of the Act, the AO has treated the return of income as invalid which is wrong ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya and in defense, he relied on certain decisions namely PCIT Vs Silver Line 363 ITR 465 (Delhi) and Sapthagiri

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]

139(9) of the Act and 292B of the Act, the AO has treated the return of income as invalid which is wrong ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya and in defense, he relied on certain decisions namely PCIT Vs Silver Line 363 ITR 465 (Delhi) and Sapthagiri

SIS CASH SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

disallowance of the deduction, even if the payment was made before the due date for filing the ROI. We need to remind ourselves that this is exactly the case in the present appeal. The judgment reinforced the distinction between employer and employee contributions. While an employer's contributions could be governed by section 43B of the Act, employees' contributions

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

section 801A could not be audited as the assessee failed to claim the same while filing return u/s 139. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna failed to appreciate the fact that the auditor in his audit report did not confirmed eligibility of deduction u/s 80IA

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

section 801A could not be audited as the assessee failed to claim the same while filing return u/s 139. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna failed to appreciate the fact that the auditor in his audit report did not confirmed eligibility of deduction u/s 80IA

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

section 801A could not be audited as the assessee failed to claim the same while filing return u/s 139. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna failed to appreciate the fact that the auditor in his audit report did not confirmed eligibility of deduction u/s 80IA

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

section 801A could not be audited as the assessee failed to claim the same while filing return u/s 139. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna failed to appreciate the fact that the auditor in his audit report did not confirmed eligibility of deduction u/s 80IA

MAHARAJADHIRAJA KAMESHWAR SINGH CHARITABLE TRUST,DARBHANGA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) In Protest Against The Action Of The Ld. Ao, Cpc, Bengaluru. The Ld. Ao, Cpc Has Denied Exemption U/S 11 Of The Act Since Apparently The Return Was Filed Belatedly U/S 139(4) Of The Act. Before The Ld. Cit(A), It Is Recorded In Para 6.2 That Two Opportunities Given For Presenting The Facts

section 139(4) may kindly be considered and exemption should not have been denied if the same is not filed within the due date u/s 139(1). 7 For that the appellant trust is eligible for exemption and the disallowance

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

139(1) of the Act was filed on 10/05/2014 and 09/03/2017 and no notice under section 143(2) of the Act, was issued for selecting the case of the assessee for scrutiny and as on the date of search assessment proceedings were not pending and, therefore, AY 2013-14 and 2015-16, are non-abated and completed assessments. Further

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

139(1) of the Act was filed on 10/05/2014 and 09/03/2017 and no notice under section 143(2) of the Act, was issued for selecting the case of the assessee for scrutiny and as on the date of search assessment proceedings were not pending and, therefore, AY 2013-14 and 2015-16, are non-abated and completed assessments. Further

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

139(1) of the Act was filed on 10/05/2014 and 09/03/2017 and no notice under section 143(2) of the Act, was issued for selecting the case of the assessee for scrutiny and as on the date of search assessment proceedings were not pending and, therefore, AY 2013-14 and 2015-16, are non-abated and completed assessments. Further

UDAY SHANKAR ARUN,GAYA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

139(1) of the Act was filed on 10/05/2014 and 09/03/2017 and no notice under section 143(2) of the Act, was issued for selecting the case of the assessee for scrutiny and as on the date of search assessment proceedings were not pending and, therefore, AY 2013-14 and 2015-16, are non-abated and completed assessments. Further