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

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

234B and 234C of the Act. As this ground is consequential in nature, the same do not require separate adjudication. 6. Ground No. 3 to 6: These grounds are general in nature and hence not adjudicated. 7 In the result the appeal for A.Y.2008-09 is allowed”. 14 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & C.O. No. 04/PAT/2022 (in ITA No. 110/PAT/2019) Assessment Year

SUNYNA KUMAR GUPTA,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 90/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sunyna Kumari Gupta, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Prop: M/S Sona Drug Agency, Tax, Circle-4, Road No. 1, Lohanipur, Rajendra Patna Nagar, Patna-800016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpg6521C Assessee By : Sh. K. N. Prasad, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Abhay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement :16 .03.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.02.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Patna.

234B, u/s 234D and 244A is arbitrary and unjust. 5. For that the appellant reserves her right to file detailed submission at the time of hearing. 6. For that the appellant craves leave to urge, add or alter any other ground or grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. Ground Nos. 1, 5 & 6 raised by the assessee are general

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

disallowing Rs. 5,14,090/- 10% of total development expenses taken by the appellant in calculation of capital gain. 7. For that the CIT (Appeal) grossly erred in passing ex-parte order confirming levy and demand of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C levied and demanded in the order passed by the Ld. assessing officer is unjustified and illegal

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

disallowing Rs. 5,14,090/- 10% of total development expenses taken by the appellant in calculation of capital gain. 7. For that the CIT (Appeal) grossly erred in passing ex-parte order confirming levy and demand of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C levied and demanded in the order passed by the Ld. assessing officer is unjustified and illegal

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

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

section 145(3) is not applicable. The income estimated in the manner provided u/s 144 of the I. T Act, 1961 @ 8% is arbitrary and unjust. The addition as made is fit to be deleted. (iii) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowances of bonafide and legitimate deduction available to the assessee

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

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

section 145(3) is not applicable. The income estimated in the manner provided u/s 144 of the I. T Act, 1961 @ 8% is arbitrary and unjust. The addition as made is fit to be deleted. (iii) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowances of bonafide and legitimate deduction available to the assessee

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234B amounting to Rs.3,94,200/- which is bad in fact and law of the case. 7. For that the appellant may not be treated as assessee in default in respect of the disputed demand including interest amounting to Rs.9,80,636/-. 8. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission along with evidences and documents

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234B amounting to Rs.3,94,200/- which is bad in fact and law of the case. 7. For that the appellant may not be treated as assessee in default in respect of the disputed demand including interest amounting to Rs.9,80,636/-. 8. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission along with evidences and documents

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234B amounting to Rs.3,94,200/- which is bad in fact and law of the case. 7. For that the appellant may not be treated as assessee in default in respect of the disputed demand including interest amounting to Rs.9,80,636/-. 8. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission along with evidences and documents