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

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

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

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

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

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

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

disallowance and deduction under section 80IA of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment has been completed without making proper inquiries or no inquiries. He also submitted that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld. JCIT for granting approval under section 153D of the Act and the same was granted on 31.03.2022, which itself proves

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. SINCON INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 133(6) of the Act, but only one party replied. Finally, the\nLearned AO treated the said purchases as unproved and\nunsubstantiated purchases and added the same to the income of the\nassessee.\n2.2. In the appellate proceedings, the Learned CIT (A) allowed the\nappeal of the assessee by observing that the assessee submitted all the\nevidences

SRIRAM ENTERPRISES,BHAGALPUR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, PATNA, PATNA

220 Crore\non which profit of about ₹9 Crore was shown. The addition of ₹43 Lakh\nPage 4\nI.T.A. No.: 607/PAT/2024\n Assessment Year: 2021-22\nSriram Enterprises.\nwas made. The sums outstanding were added as the notices u/s 133(6)\nof the Act issued by the Ld. AO were not responded by the parties and\nthe amounts were

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]

220(Delhi), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that failureof the Assessing Officer issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act is fatal toorder of reassessment; such failure cannot be condoned by referring to section292BB of the Act. 4. In the case of CIT Vs. Fomento Finance and Investment(P.) Ltd. [2020] 113taxmann.com 237 (Bombay

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]

220(Delhi), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that failureof the Assessing Officer issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act is fatal toorder of reassessment; such failure cannot be condoned by referring to section292BB of the Act. 4. In the case of CIT Vs. Fomento Finance and Investment(P.) Ltd. [2020] 113taxmann.com 237 (Bombay

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]

220(Delhi), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that failureof the Assessing Officer issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act is fatal toorder of reassessment; such failure cannot be condoned by referring to section292BB of the Act. 4. In the case of CIT Vs. Fomento Finance and Investment(P.) Ltd. [2020] 113taxmann.com 237 (Bombay

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]

220(Delhi), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that failureof the Assessing Officer issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act is fatal toorder of reassessment; such failure cannot be condoned by referring to section292BB of the Act. 4. In the case of CIT Vs. Fomento Finance and Investment(P.) Ltd. [2020] 113taxmann.com 237 (Bombay

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]

220(Delhi), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that failureof the Assessing Officer issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act is fatal toorder of reassessment; such failure cannot be condoned by referring to section292BB of the Act. 4. In the case of CIT Vs. Fomento Finance and Investment(P.) Ltd. [2020] 113taxmann.com 237 (Bombay

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

220/-. The ld. Assessing Officer has initiated a proceeding under section 154 of the Income Tax Act. He observed in his order dated 28.06.2019 passed under section 154 of the Income Tax Act that the intention to rectify the assessment order was intimated to the assessee vide a notice dated 18.12.2018 and the copy of this notice has been placed

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

220/- which is less than 50% of the professional receipt which the assessee was required to declare as per the provisions of section 44ADA of the Act as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Since the books of accounts have not been audited under section 44AB of the Act, the impugned disallowance of Rs.84,035/- deserves to be confirmed. Thus

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

220/- which is less than 50% of the professional receipt which the assessee was required to declare as per the provisions of section 44ADA of the Act as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Since the books of accounts have not been audited under section 44AB of the Act, the impugned disallowance of Rs.84,035/- deserves to be confirmed. Thus

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

220/- which is less than 50% of the professional receipt which the assessee was required to declare as per the provisions of section 44ADA of the Act as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Since the books of accounts have not been audited under section 44AB of the Act, the impugned disallowance of Rs.84,035/- deserves to be confirmed. Thus

SUNITA KUMARI,GAYA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

220/- which is less than 50% of the professional receipt which the assessee was required to declare as per the provisions of section 44ADA of the Act as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Since the books of accounts have not been audited under section 44AB of the Act, the impugned disallowance of Rs.84,035/- deserves to be confirmed. Thus

UDAY SHANKAR ARUN,GAYA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

220/- which is less than 50% of the professional receipt which the assessee was required to declare as per the provisions of section 44ADA of the Act as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Since the books of accounts have not been audited under section 44AB of the Act, the impugned disallowance of Rs.84,035/- deserves to be confirmed. Thus

UDAY SHANKAR ARUN,GAYA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

ITA No. 17/Pat/2023;

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 17 To 23/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2019-20 Sunita Kumari Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Mir Abu Saleh Road Vs Kotwali Bihar - 823001 [Pan: Aoupk1552K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

220/- which is less than 50% of the professional receipt which the assessee was required to declare as per the provisions of section 44ADA of the Act as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Since the books of accounts have not been audited under section 44AB of the Act, the impugned disallowance of Rs.84,035/- deserves to be confirmed. Thus