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

section 142(1) of the Act issued by the ld. Assessing Officer for the impugned assessment years from 2017-18 to 2021-22 under appeals, various replies Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited given by the assessee to such notices on multiple occasions, copies of assessment orders passed for A.Ys

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

section 142(1) of the Act issued by the ld. Assessing Officer for the impugned assessment years from 2017-18 to 2021-22 under appeals, various replies Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited given by the assessee to such notices on multiple occasions, copies of assessment orders passed for A.Ys

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

section 142(1) of the Act issued by the ld. Assessing Officer for the impugned assessment years from 2017-18 to 2021-22 under appeals, various replies Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited given by the assessee to such notices on multiple occasions, copies of assessment orders passed for A.Ys

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

142. Questionnaires were issued to which the assessee company had responded by furnishing details and documents about the deduction under section 80-IA and finally the then Assessing Officer made the assessment and detail scrutiny order under section 143(3) was passed disallowing the deduction to certain extent of Rs. 3.65 crores from the total claim made under section

JCIT(IN-SITU), CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. TECHNOCULTURE BUILDING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes\nand Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

142(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961\ndated 02 11 2021\n\nii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has\nerred in allowing the ground of appeal related to disallowance of Rs 6,23,78,655/-\nto closing stock and deleted the addition on account of Closing Stock on the basis

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

1) passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2018-19 by the Ld. assessing officer at Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, is bad both in law and on facts. 4. For that the appellant was not given any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, to put forth his contentions and place evidences henceforth

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

1) passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2018-19 by the Ld. assessing officer at Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, is bad both in law and on facts. 4. For that the appellant was not given any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, to put forth his contentions and place evidences henceforth

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

1) passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2018-19 by the Ld. assessing officer at Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, is bad both in law and on facts. 4. For that the appellant was not given any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, to put forth his contentions and place evidences henceforth

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

1) passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2018-19 by the Ld. assessing officer at Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, is bad both in law and on facts. 4. For that the appellant was not given any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, to put forth his contentions and place evidences henceforth

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

1) passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2018-19 by the Ld. assessing officer at Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, is bad both in law and on facts. 4. For that the appellant was not given any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, to put forth his contentions and place evidences henceforth

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

1) passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2018-19 by the Ld. assessing officer at Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, is bad both in law and on facts. 4. For that the appellant was not given any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, to put forth his contentions and place evidences henceforth

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

142(1) in both the years. In A.Y. 2016-17, ld. Assessing Officer has observed that a perusal of the books of assessee, it revealed that it had shown a loan received from M/s. Trailblazer Edusol (P) Limited amounting to Rs.2,00,04,931/-. The ld. Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee could not prove creditworthiness

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

142(1) in both the years. In A.Y. 2016-17, ld. Assessing Officer has observed that a perusal of the books of assessee, it revealed that it had shown a loan received from M/s. Trailblazer Edusol (P) Limited amounting to Rs.2,00,04,931/-. The ld. Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee could not prove creditworthiness

KISHORI CAPITAL MARKETS PVT. LTD.,BBD BAGH (EAST) vs. ITO WARD 2(1), PATNA, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

disallowance of Rs. 2,05,14,580/- has been dismissed but allowed the appeal of the assessee by allowing the credit for pre-assessment taxes paid and accordingly, the appeal has been dismissed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred. 1.1. The ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order on various

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

142(1) on 13.06.2011. A perusal of the finding of ld. Assessing Officer on page 2 of the impugned order would reveal that the assessee was not very cooperative with the ld. Assessing Officer for submitting the requisite details. The 2 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 M/s. Kumar Construction ld. Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty under section 271(1

WASEEM ALAM,WEST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.17/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Waseem Alam…...………………….....…..…………………....Appellant Bhawanipur Kursi Barawa, Sikta, West Champaran, Bihar-845307. [Pan: Alopa0369B] Vs. Ito, Nfac, Delhi…………..……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 22, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.11.2024 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. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,68,550. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under The E- Assessment Scheme, With The Specific Issue Of Verification Of Large Deduction Claimed Under Section 57 Of The Act. Notice Under Section 143(2) & Subsequently Under Section 142(1) Was Issued To The Assessee. Although The Assessee Uploaded Certain Documents Electronically In Response, The Details Were Found To Be Incomplete. The

disallowed solely on the ground that the assessee failed to furnish necessary evidence to establish that the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning such income. It is also evident that the assessee had made partial compliance with the notices issued under Section 142(1

VIJAYA SINGH,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1), PATNA, PATNA, BIHAR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 519/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Vijaya Singh,…………………………...….………Appellant M-55/22A, S.K. Nagar, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Asups6086N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………......Respondent Ward-6(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Jay Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-800001, Bihar

142(1) of the Act dated 09.04.2021 was issued to the assessee to furnish the details as per the questionnaire annexed to the notice. But the assessee failed to furnish the details in response to the notices issued. The assessee declared the income under the head ‘house property’ and the assessee has also declared the agricultural income of Rs.39

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]

142(1) giving show cause to the assessee as to why the capital gain on sale of property should not be added to the income of the assessee. Considering these facts and circumstances it is apparent from the records before us that no notice has been issued and served on the assessee . In our opinion where no notice