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

143(3) / 147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2012-13 by the ld. assessing officer, viz. the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Patna, 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 at the time

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

143(3) / 147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2012-13 by the ld. assessing officer, viz. the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Patna, 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 at the time

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

143(3) / 147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2012-13 by the ld. assessing officer, viz. the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Patna, 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 at the time

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

143(3) / 147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2012-13 by the ld. assessing officer, viz. the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Patna, 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 at the time

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

143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, and (b) unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee : (i) to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section

PRASHANT PACKAGING PVT.LTD,PATNA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIR-2, PATNA, PATNA

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

143(3) of the Act was passed by AO making disallowance u/s 40A(3) amounting to Rs. 5,15,169/- on account of cash bonus paid to the employees.\n3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein also the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed.\nBeing aggrieved and dissatisfied

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

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]

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

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. AJIT KUMAR, BETTIAH

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 40A(3) are not applicable. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna erred in not Including the Issue In the remand order Issued by him for examination of the undisclosed receipt from business of the assessee. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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 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

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

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

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