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

II. ITA No. 331/PAT/2024; AY 2013-14: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 25/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060138818(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for Assessment Year 2013-14 by the Ld. First Appellate Authority

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

II. ITA No. 331/PAT/2024; AY 2013-14: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 25/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060138818(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for Assessment Year 2013-14 by the Ld. First Appellate Authority

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

II. ITA No. 331/PAT/2024; AY 2013-14: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 25/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060138818(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for Assessment Year 2013-14 by the Ld. First Appellate Authority

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

II. ITA No. 331/PAT/2024; AY 2013-14: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 25/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060138818(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for Assessment Year 2013-14 by the Ld. First Appellate Authority

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

II. ITA No. 331/PAT/2024; AY 2013-14: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the appellate order dated 25/01/2024 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060138818(1) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for Assessment Year 2013-14 by the Ld. First Appellate Authority

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

ii) Closely examine the seized material; (iii) Consider the provisions of Section 142(2A). . (28) For that the Ld. Pr.CIT has failed to appreciate that re-examination of the issue already concluded vide order u/s 143(3) dated 31/03/2022 would amount to review of the said order which is not permissible in the eyes of law. (29) For that whole

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

ii) Closely examine the seized material; (iii) Consider the provisions of Section 142(2A). . (28) For that the Ld. Pr.CIT has failed to appreciate that re-examination of the issue already concluded vide order u/s 143(3) dated 31/03/2022 would amount to review of the said order which is not permissible in the eyes of law. (29) For that whole

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

ii) Closely examine the seized material; (iii) Consider the provisions of Section 142(2A). . (28) For that the Ld. Pr.CIT has failed to appreciate that re-examination of the issue already concluded vide order u/s 143(3) dated 31/03/2022 would amount to review of the said order which is not permissible in the eyes of law. (29) For that whole

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

ii) Closely examine the seized material; (iii) Consider the provisions of Section 142(2A). . (28) For that the Ld. Pr.CIT has failed to appreciate that re-examination of the issue already concluded vide order u/s 143(3) dated 31/03/2022 would amount to review of the said order which is not permissible in the eyes of law. (29) For that whole

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

ii) Closely examine the seized material; (iii) Consider the provisions of Section 142(2A). . (28) For that the Ld. Pr.CIT has failed to appreciate that re-examination of the issue already concluded vide order u/s 143(3) dated 31/03/2022 would amount to review of the said order which is not permissible in the eyes of law. (29) For that whole

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

143(2) and 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

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

143(2) and 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

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

ii) The adjustments made to the order u/s.143(1) through rectification u/s. 154 of the Act, is beyond the scope of section 143(1), since only prima facie adjustments are permitted thereon, and certainly not adjustments which pertain to debatable issues. The Ld. AR relied on the case of Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) P. ltd. Vs. ACIT

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.

143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment yeari, unless any P a g e 7 | 71 Assessment Year : 2010 -2011 income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason

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]

143(2) of the Act which were also referred by the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the ratio laid down in the above decisions, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee on legal issue. Accordingly we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue. 18. Insofar

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]

143(2) of the Act which were also referred by the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the ratio laid down in the above decisions, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee on legal issue. Accordingly we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue. 18. Insofar

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]

143(2) of the Act which were also referred by the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the ratio laid down in the above decisions, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee on legal issue. Accordingly we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue. 18. Insofar

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]

143(2) of the Act which were also referred by the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the ratio laid down in the above decisions, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee on legal issue. Accordingly we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal of the revenue. 18. Insofar