BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN.LTD.,PATNA vs. CIT (APPEAL), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

4. For that the order of assessment dated 21/11/2019 bearing DIN & Order No: NIL passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act for Assessment Year 2014-15 by the ld. assessing officer, viz. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Patna is invalid in view of the fact that there was no DIN mentioned

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 2(1) PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

4. For that the order of assessment dated 21/11/2019 bearing DIN & Order No: NIL passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act for Assessment Year 2014-15 by the ld. assessing officer, viz. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Patna is invalid in view of the fact that there was no DIN mentioned

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIR-2, P)ATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

4. For that the order of assessment dated 21/11/2019 bearing DIN & Order No: NIL passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act for Assessment Year 2014-15 by the ld. assessing officer, viz. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Patna is invalid in view of the fact that there was no DIN mentioned

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, COR-2, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

4. For that the order of assessment dated 21/11/2019 bearing DIN & Order No: NIL passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act for Assessment Year 2014-15 by the ld. assessing officer, viz. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2, Patna is invalid in view of the fact that there was no DIN mentioned

SANGAM ALMIRAH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUZAFFARPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2018-19 dated 10.06.2025, which has been passed against the penalty order u/s 270A of the Act, dated 10.02.2022. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the orders of the authorities below

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. AJIT KUMAR, BETTIAH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 dated 30.11.2023, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act, dated 30.12.2019. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2. As the issue raised are common and pertains to same assessee, these appeals have been heard together and being disposed of by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Perusal of grounds of Revenue’s appeal reveals that the sole grievance in all these bunch of appeals

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2. As the issue raised are common and pertains to same assessee, these appeals have been heard together and being disposed of by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Perusal of grounds of Revenue’s appeal reveals that the sole grievance in all these bunch of appeals

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2. As the issue raised are common and pertains to same assessee, these appeals have been heard together and being disposed of by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Perusal of grounds of Revenue’s appeal reveals that the sole grievance in all these bunch of appeals

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2. As the issue raised are common and pertains to same assessee, these appeals have been heard together and being disposed of by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Perusal of grounds of Revenue’s appeal reveals that the sole grievance in all these bunch of appeals

GUPTA JI BROTHERS RICE PRIVATE LIMITED,DALMIA NAGAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3, GAYA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’), passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereafter ‘the Ld. CIT(A)], vide order dated 21.12.2022. 1.1 In this case, the assessee filed its return of income on 26.11.2014 for the assessment year under consideration and after detailed I.T.A. No. 33/Pat/2023 Gupta

LAKSHMI MANDAL,MADHUBANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MADHUBANI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2. Brief facts of the Case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of ₹4,02,890/-. The return was processed under section

BRIJESH KUMAR,WEST CHAMPARAN vs. DC/AC CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

disallowed and the net profit works out to about 12%. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had filed the paper book but the same was not admitted under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and our attention was drawn to page 3 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) where it is mentioned in para 4

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.

4.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section, as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012.] 2.6 A plain reading of this provision makes it abundantly clear that if the Assessing Officer has reason

WASEEM ALAM,WEST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.17/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Waseem Alam…...………………….....…..…………………....Appellant Bhawanipur Kursi Barawa, Sikta, West Champaran, Bihar-845307. [Pan: Alopa0369B] Vs. Ito, Nfac, Delhi…………..……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 22, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.11.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,68,550. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under The E- Assessment Scheme, With The Specific Issue Of Verification Of Large Deduction Claimed Under Section 57 Of The Act. Notice Under Section 143(2) & Subsequently Under Section 142(1) Was Issued To The Assessee. Although The Assessee Uploaded Certain Documents Electronically In Response, The Details Were Found To Be Incomplete. The

250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts of the Case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19 declaring total income of Rs.9,68,550. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under

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 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