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

192 of 2000 wherein it has been held that the assessment order approved by the Addl. CIT under section 153D, cannot be subjected to revision under section 263 of the I.T. Act. In view of the above decision also, we hold that the revision order under section 263 of the I.T. Act is not sustainable. 21. From going through

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

192 of 2000 wherein it has been held that the assessment order approved by the Addl. CIT under section 153D, cannot be subjected to revision under section 263 of the I.T. Act. In view of the above decision also, we hold that the revision order under section 263 of the I.T. Act is not sustainable. 21. From going through

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

192 of 2000 wherein it has been held that the assessment order approved by the Addl. CIT under section 153D, cannot be subjected to revision under section 263 of the I.T. Act. In view of the above decision also, we hold that the revision order under section 263 of the I.T. Act is not sustainable. 21. From going through

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.

disallowed nor any addition was made. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) quashed the reassessment proceedings holding that the assessee had disclosed all the facts and no new fact was available to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it was mere change of opinion on the part of the Assessing Officer and as such, the reassessment proceedings could not have been validly initiated

ANIL KUMAR,NALANDA vs. ITO, WARD- 2 (3), BIHARSHARIF

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 361/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anil Kumar National Faceless Assessment Centre M/S Raj Trading Company, Nfac, Delhi Harnaut, Nalanda, Patna-803110 Vs Bihar [Pan : Azopc268H] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

Section 40(a)(ia). 10. For that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is wrong, illegal and unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. 11. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission along with documents and evidences on or before date of hearing. 12. For that the appellant

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

192 days. Condonation application has been filed by the assessee. After perusing the same, we find force in the reasons mentioned therein and are satisfied that the assessee was prevented for I.T.A. Nos.: 328 & 329/Pat/2018 AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Rushtam Khan. reasonable cause in filing the instant appeals. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

192 days. Condonation application has been filed by the assessee. After perusing the same, we find force in the reasons mentioned therein and are satisfied that the assessee was prevented for I.T.A. Nos.: 328 & 329/Pat/2018 AYs: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Rushtam Khan. reasonable cause in filing the instant appeals. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication