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]

48 taxman.com 120(Delhi-Trib.) In view of the above judgments, I hereby quash the assessment made on10.12.2019 ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya The A.R has further argued, that without prejudice to the illegal initiation of proceedings under section 147 and the issuance of 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]

48 taxman.com 120(Delhi-Trib.) In view of the above judgments, I hereby quash the assessment made on10.12.2019 ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya The A.R has further argued, that without prejudice to the illegal initiation of proceedings under section 147 and the issuance of 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]

48 taxman.com 120(Delhi-Trib.) In view of the above judgments, I hereby quash the assessment made on10.12.2019 ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya The A.R has further argued, that without prejudice to the illegal initiation of proceedings under section 147 and the issuance of 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]

48 taxman.com 120(Delhi-Trib.) In view of the above judgments, I hereby quash the assessment made on10.12.2019 ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya The A.R has further argued, that without prejudice to the illegal initiation of proceedings under section 147 and the issuance of Notice

RANI DEVI,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

48,74,289/- ) and the difference of income as determined under section 44AD and net profit shown by the assessee, which comes to Rs.28,91,375/- was added to the total income of the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer disallowed

SEEMA SRIVASTAVA,PATNA vs. ITO,DC/AC-6, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

sections. 9. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission along with documents and evidences on or before date of hearing. 10. For that the appellant may be given opportunity of personal hearing physically/virtually at the time of hearing of the appeal. 11. For that the whole order is bad in fact

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 the said amount on the ground that mere establishing the identity of the creditor or the transaction have been routed through banking channel is not enough to prove the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. On appeal, the CIT(A) called for remand report from the Assessing officer and after considering the same confirmed the addition. However, the Tribunal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, PATNA vs. NORTH BIHAR POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and COs of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

disallowance of ₹72,67,00,000/- by the learned CIT (A) as made by the ld. AO on account of delayed payment surcharge by the consumers. 4.1. The learned AO during the assessment proceeding noted from the documents/evidences furnished by assessee that assessee had followed mercantile/ accrual system of accounting and with regard to delayed payment of surcharge (DPS) assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR vs. M/S UTTAR BIHAR GRAMIN BANK, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey] I.T.A. No. 29/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur M/S Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank

48,64,960/-. The case of the assessee was 2 I.T.A. No. 29/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank selected for scrutiny, notices were issued and after hearing the assessee the assessment was completed by declaring total income of Rs. 1,32,07,19,840/- as the AO has added an amount

GYASUDDIN MOHAMMAD ANSARI,PURNIA vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (3), PURNEA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 80 E had been wrongly claimed. In fact, the assessee had sold a commercial is of land and furnish the working of capital loss of ₹ 240,000 and relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of gets a (India) Ltd vs CIT. The AO did not accept the contention of the assessee as according