AJAY KUMAR GHOSH,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

1 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Ajay Kumar Ghosh Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 12.11.2021 passed for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has taken eight grounds of appeal, but in brief his grievance is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the rectification order passed under section 154 of the Income

GREENREV VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

1 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Greenrev Ventures Private Limited 2. This appeal was heard by us on 11th September, 2024. However, while dictating the order, we find discrepancy qua the submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, vis-à-vis, the alleged impugned order of the ld. Assessing Officer. Therefore, we pass the following order and relist

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

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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. M/S ALKEM LABORATORIES LTD, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting relief to the assessee on account of adjustment made to book profit on account of Provisions for Doubtful debts/advance for A.V. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 under the provision of section 115JB of the 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

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

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

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)

1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not considering the claim of carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation on the grounds inter-alia that the same was made in proceeding of appeal for the first time in appeal

M/S ANIL KR. SINGH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

1. For that the whole order passed ex-parte by Ld. CIT (Appeal) is wholly wrong, illegal & against the fact and circumstances of the case. 2. For that the Ld. CIT (A) & Ld. Assessing officer has erred in upholding the order passed U/s 154 of the I T Act in the eyes of law and against the facts & circumstances

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

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

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