SANJAY KUMAR SHAH,ARARIA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

2) for not stating any exceptional & unavoidable circumstances by totally ignoring the business exigencies for purchasing agricultural product from the agriculturist and its volume of cash payment. Both the authorities below failed to bring any substantial reason for disallowing 5% of total amount of 3,31,18,000/­ (approx) throughout the year is not for any business exigencies for purchasing

ASHOK KUMAR,BHOJPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, ARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

2) is to be given in the cases where an assessee has filed the return. It is the first opportunity given to the assessee that what he wants to submit in support of his return. In a case when no return is being filed, the ld. Assessing Officer can initiate the investigating machinery by issuance of a questionnaire under section

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. M/S ALKEM LABORATORIES LTD, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Any other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from records are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of pharmaceutical formulations. Income at Rs. 50,14,38,439/- declared in the e- return

GANESH KUMAR KHEMKA,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 4(3), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.237/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ganesh Kumar Khemka..…………………...........................……….……Appellant B/46, Saraswati Apartment, S.P. Verma Road, Patna, Bihar – 800001. [Pan: Agwpk1726D] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Patna…....……...…………………………………....…..Respondent

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and disallowed this amount. The second addition amounting to Rs.3,55,95,280/- has been made on account of addition to the capital account of partnership concerns (M/s Gajmukh Trading and M/s Bhawani Enterprises). It is recorded that the assessee could not explain these additions to the capital account and hence all these

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)

2 raised by the assessee and delete the addition of Rs.2,10,592/-. 12. The second issue for consideration is disallowance of expenditure at Rs.2,38,705/-. We observe that the assessee has declared professional income of Rs.21,90,890/-and after claiming the expenditure has shown that income at Rs.8,56,740/-. However, the Id. AO has applied

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)

2 raised by the assessee and delete the addition of Rs.2,10,592/-. 12. The second issue for consideration is disallowance of expenditure at Rs.2,38,705/-. We observe that the assessee has declared professional income of Rs.21,90,890/-and after claiming the expenditure has shown that income at Rs.8,56,740/-. However, the Id. AO has applied

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)

2 raised by the assessee and delete the addition of Rs.2,10,592/-. 12. The second issue for consideration is disallowance of expenditure at Rs.2,38,705/-. We observe that the assessee has declared professional income of Rs.21,90,890/-and after claiming the expenditure has shown that income at Rs.8,56,740/-. However, the Id. AO has applied

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)

2 raised by the assessee and delete the addition of Rs.2,10,592/-. 12. The second issue for consideration is disallowance of expenditure at Rs.2,38,705/-. We observe that the assessee has declared professional income of Rs.21,90,890/-and after claiming the expenditure has shown that income at Rs.8,56,740/-. However, the Id. AO has applied

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)

2 raised by the assessee and delete the addition of Rs.2,10,592/-. 12. The second issue for consideration is disallowance of expenditure at Rs.2,38,705/-. We observe that the assessee has declared professional income of Rs.21,90,890/-and after claiming the expenditure has shown that income at Rs.8,56,740/-. However, the Id. AO has applied

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)

2 raised by the assessee and delete the addition of Rs.2,10,592/-. 12. The second issue for consideration is disallowance of expenditure at Rs.2,38,705/-. We observe that the assessee has declared professional income of Rs.21,90,890/-and after claiming the expenditure has shown that income at Rs.8,56,740/-. However, the Id. AO has applied

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)

2 raised by the assessee and delete the addition of Rs.2,10,592/-. 12. The second issue for consideration is disallowance of expenditure at Rs.2,38,705/-. We observe that the assessee has declared professional income of Rs.21,90,890/-and after claiming the expenditure has shown that income at Rs.8,56,740/-. However, the Id. AO has applied

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)

2 raised by the assessee and delete the addition of Rs.2,10,592/-. 12. The second issue for consideration is disallowance of expenditure at Rs.2,38,705/-. We observe that the assessee has declared professional income of Rs.21,90,890/-and after claiming the expenditure has shown that income at Rs.8,56,740/-. However, the Id. AO has applied

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)

2 raised by the assessee and delete the addition of Rs.2,10,592/-. 12. The second issue for consideration is disallowance of expenditure at Rs.2,38,705/-. We observe that the assessee has declared professional income of Rs.21,90,890/-and after claiming the expenditure has shown that income at Rs.8,56,740/-. However, the Id. AO has applied

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)

2 raised by the assessee and delete the addition of Rs.2,10,592/-. 12. The second issue for consideration is disallowance of expenditure at Rs.2,38,705/-. We observe that the assessee has declared professional income of Rs.21,90,890/-and after claiming the expenditure has shown that income at Rs.8,56,740/-. However, the Id. AO has applied

ITO, WARD-2(1), BEGUSARAI vs. SHRI PREM CHAND KESHRI, LAKHISARAI

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

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Rajesh Kumar

Section 40A(3) of the Act. The assessee explained before the appellate authority that all the payments were made otherwise than in cash except only Rs. 1,50,000/- as detailed above was made exceeding the prescribed limit. We note that Ld. CIT(A) has recorded a finding that Ld. AO has acted arbitrarily making the disallowance to this effect

SIS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, DELHI

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

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

2. That the CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in sustaining the addition of Rs.5,60,01,339/- without recording any justifiable dissatisfaction with the appellant's explanations for claim of deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'). 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

RAJESH SINGH,HAJIPUR vs. ADDL/JCIT, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz)

sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee was asked to submit details of agriculture income, bank account statement, income from milk and bio-products etc. along with documentary evidences. The assessee furnished the copy of ITR, bank account statement, details of agriculture land, copy of khatian, details

M/S PSP TRADING PVT LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 2 (1), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2(1)\nPatna, Bihar\n(Respondent)\nPAN No. AABCP3709R\nAssessee by\nRevenue by\nShri Manish Rastogi, AR\nShri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR\nDate of hearing: 27.11.2025\nDate of pronouncement: 09.12.2025\nORDER\nPer Rajesh Kumar, AM:\n2. This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred