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

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

disallowance, irrespective of subsequent actions.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "Sec. 36(1)(va)", "Sec. 2(24)(x)", "Sec. 40(a)(i)", "Sec. 154

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]

154 of the Act only to correct the anomaly of non issuance of mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. On the other hand , the provisions of Sections 144 of the Act are applicable only when the assessee does cooperate and does not furnish any details/information and then it does not require to issue any 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]

154 of the Act only to correct the anomaly of non issuance of mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. On the other hand , the provisions of Sections 144 of the Act are applicable only when the assessee does cooperate and does not furnish any details/information and then it does not require to issue any 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]

154 of the Act only to correct the anomaly of non issuance of mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. On the other hand , the provisions of Sections 144 of the Act are applicable only when the assessee does cooperate and does not furnish any details/information and then it does not require to issue any notice

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]

154 of the Act only to correct the anomaly of non issuance of mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. On the other hand , the provisions of Sections 144 of the Act are applicable only when the assessee does cooperate and does not furnish any details/information and then it does not require to issue any 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]

154 of the Act only to correct the anomaly of non issuance of mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. On the other hand , the provisions of Sections 144 of the Act are applicable only when the assessee does cooperate and does not furnish any details/information and then it does not require to issue any notice

LAVANYA ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ITW WARD 2 (1) PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 342/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Lavanya Estates Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer, Kasim Colonydargah Road Ward 2(1), Mahendru, Sultanganj, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dakbanglow, Patna-800 001 Patna, Bihar-800 006 [Pan : Aadcl0333R] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

154 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. Besides the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeals , the assessee has also raised additional grounds before us which are reproduced hereunder “1. For that on the facts of the case the AO was wrong in adding other points when the scrutiny was fixed

VIKRAMSHILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LTD,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHAGALPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) on the grounds inter-alia that the losses determined in course of assessment for the year preceding that is, assessment year 2013-14 was not allowed to be set off. The appellant also stated that even the unabsorbed depreciation was not considered and allowed

SHASHI KRISHNA EDUCATIONAL AVAM WELFARE SOCIETY,PATNA vs. AO, PATNA

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

disallowed while processing the return under\nsection 143(1) of the Act. Needless to say, the assessee shall be given a\nreasonable opportunity of being heard to make any further submission\nit wants to make in support of its grounds of appeal and shall not seek\nunnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, all the grounds taken by the\nassessee in the appeal

DEEPAK KUMAR,MUZAFFARPUR vs. CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 143(1) of the Act, the validity of the revised Form No. 3CD and the scope of rectification u/s 154 of the Act. However, he observed that the CPC acted within the jurisdiction u/s 143(1) and 154 of the Act. The adjustments made were based on the original report on Form No. 3CD which formed part

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,PATNA, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 801A could not be audited as the assessee failed to claim the same while filing return u/s 139. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna failed to appreciate the fact that the auditor in his audit report did not confirmed eligibility of deduction u/s 80IA

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, PATNA, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 801A could not be audited as the assessee failed to claim the same while filing return u/s 139. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna failed to appreciate the fact that the auditor in his audit report did not confirmed eligibility of deduction u/s 80IA

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 801A could not be audited as the assessee failed to claim the same while filing return u/s 139. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna failed to appreciate the fact that the auditor in his audit report did not confirmed eligibility of deduction u/s 80IA

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 PATNA, PATNA vs. GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

section 801A could not be audited as the assessee failed to claim the same while filing return u/s 139. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna failed to appreciate the fact that the auditor in his audit report did not confirmed eligibility of deduction u/s 80IA

ITO, WARD-3(3), AURANGABAD vs. M/S SAMRAT FUEL ENTERPRISES, ROHTAS

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.37/Pat/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), ………. Appellant Vs. M/S. Samrat Fuel Enterprises ………… Respondent (Pan: Aarfs0206P) Appearances By: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr Appeared For Appellant Shri Rajesh Mahajan, Ca Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 11.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 14.08.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal)-1, Patna [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 05.12.2017 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Ito, Ward-3(3), Gaya Dated 27.12.2012. I.T.A. No. 01/Pat/2023 A Y: 2013-14, Suman Kr. Singh

disallowed the alleged excess amount of Page 2 of 4 I.T.A. No. 01/Pat/2023 A Y: 2013-14, Suman Kr. Singh remuneration at Rs.3,09,503/-. Finally, with the said action of the Ld AO, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and made reference to the relevant provisions of section 40(b)(v) of the Act which provides that

RAINBOW ESTATES P LTD,BANDAR BACHICHA vs. CPC, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

154 of the Act on 16.12.2022 but the same was rejected by CPC on the same date. The assessee filed the appeal against the processing of the return before the Ld. CIT(A) but vide order dated 23.06.2023, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed without allowing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is stated that

KUMAR SAURABH,WEST BENGAL vs. ITO WARD 4 (1), PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.345/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20

154 of The Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru is contrary to the law and facts of the case, hence liable to be quashed. 2) That the NFAC, has erred in upholding the non-granting of the foreign tax credit of Rs. 349,286/- as claimed in the return of income

KOSHLESH VARIJ LOCHAN,BANGALORE vs. ITO WARD- 1 (1), MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed”

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

154 of the Act but he had filed the appeal against the order u/s 143(1) of the Act. Considering the bonafide claim of the assessee, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 9. Now, we are left with two remedies, first that we restore the appeal to the file