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

2) and u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 20.01.2022 and has asked the assessee to furnish the reply to various questions mentioned in the questionnaire attached to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act. The copy of the notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 20.01.2022 is placed at pages

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

2) and u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 20.01.2022 and has asked the assessee to furnish the reply to various questions mentioned in the questionnaire attached to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act. The copy of the notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 20.01.2022 is placed at pages

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

2) and u/s. 142(1) of the Act on 20.01.2022 and has asked the assessee to furnish the reply to various questions mentioned in the questionnaire attached to the notice under section 142(1) of the Act. The copy of the notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 20.01.2022 is placed at pages

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

2) and 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

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.

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 in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024 AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited (BSRDCL). assessee. The reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 02.08.2016 by making the following

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024 AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited (BSRDCL). assessee. The reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 02.08.2016 by making the following

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024 AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited (BSRDCL). assessee. The reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 02.08.2016 by making the following

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024 AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited (BSRDCL). assessee. The reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 02.08.2016 by making the following

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024 AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited (BSRDCL). assessee. The reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 02.08.2016 by making the following

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the I.T.A. Nos.: 330, 331, 332, 333, 334 & 335/PAT/2024 AYs: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited (BSRDCL). assessee. The reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 02.08.2016 by making the following

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

SOCIETY FOR ADVANCEMENT OF VILLAGE ECONOMY,GAYA vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

142(1) of the Act were issued and duly served upon the assessee. The assessee Trust derives income from the activities of financial inclusion and for the year under consideration, was registered u/s 12AA of the Act vide registration no. 201/2011-12 dated 21.02.2012 by the CIT-I, Patna. During the course of the assessment proceeding, the details and books

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]

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

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

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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