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

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]

147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 on 28.03.2019 which was complied with by the assessee by filing return of income on 27.01.2019. We note that the AO has even assessed the income on the basis of return of income filed by the assessee u/s 148 (1) of the Act and even the notice was issued

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]

147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 on 28.03.2019 which was complied with by the assessee by filing return of income on 27.01.2019. We note that the AO has even assessed the income on the basis of return of income filed by the assessee u/s 148 (1) of the Act and even the notice was issued

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]

147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 on 28.03.2019 which was complied with by the assessee by filing return of income on 27.01.2019. We note that the AO has even assessed the income on the basis of return of income filed by the assessee u/s 148 (1) of the Act and even the notice was issued

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]

147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 on 28.03.2019 which was complied with by the assessee by filing return of income on 27.01.2019. We note that the AO has even assessed the income on the basis of return of income filed by the assessee u/s 148 (1) of the Act and even the notice was issued

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]

147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 on 28.03.2019 which was complied with by the assessee by filing return of income on 27.01.2019. We note that the AO has even assessed the income on the basis of return of income filed by the assessee u/s 148 (1) of the Act and even the notice was issued

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

Section 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

Section 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

Section 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 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

Section 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 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

Section 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

Section 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

PAVAN KUMAR BHAGAT,SAHARSA vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), SAHARSA, SAHARA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowing and adding Rs.11,65,739 claimed as commission expenses by the appellant, solely on the ground that the said deduction is not allowable in view of violation of provision of section 194G of the Act and section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, without considering the fact that the commission have been paid genuinely and through banking mode

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. SONAMOTI AGROTECH PVT LTD, PATNA

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

147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. 17. In the facts of the present case, a search came to be conducted on 07.10.2009 and the notice was issued to the assessee under section 153A of the Act for assessment year 2006-07 on 04.08.2010. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return

SANGAM ALMIRAH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUZAFFARPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowance falls. However, on going through the submission of the assessee, it can be seen that the assessee stated that they themselves detected that the PF and ESI for the period of business i.e. 01.04.2017 to 30.06.2017 was by mistake debited to P & L account of the company. However, the same was being brought to the notice

ARUN CONSTRUCTION,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAGALPUR

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

147 I 148 is arbitrary unjustified, void ab-initio and bad in law. 3. For that the learned CIT(A) has also failed to adjudicate the following grounds:- (i) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no justification for addition of a sum of Rs. 9,43,7351- being hire charges separately. The case

ARUN CONSTRUCTION,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAGALPUR

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

147 I 148 is arbitrary unjustified, void ab-initio and bad in law. 3. For that the learned CIT(A) has also failed to adjudicate the following grounds:- (i) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no justification for addition of a sum of Rs. 9,43,7351- being hire charges separately. The case

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

147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. 17. In the facts of the present case, a search came to be conducted on 07.10.2009 and the notice was issued to the assessee under section 153A of the Act for assessment year 2006-07 on 04.08.2010. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return