ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. AHMAD ASHFAQUE KARIM, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

16 of the order of Ld. CIT(A). 7. A statement of Jaipal Singh was recorded u/s 131 of the I. T. Act, 1961 on 26.04.2016, in which in response to question number 4 he stated that, he does not have knowledge of purchased property, the property is in Jasola but he does not remember address and he does

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S AL-KARIM EDUCATIONAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

16 of the order of Ld. CIT(A). 7. A statement of Jaipal Singh was recorded u/s 131 of the I. T. Act, 1961 on 26.04.2016, in which in response to question number 4 he stated that, he does not have knowledge of purchased property, the property is in Jasola but he does not remember address and he does

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. NUZHAT NASREEN, L/H AHMAD ASHFAQUEKARIM OF NUZHAT NASREEN, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

16 of the order of Ld. CIT(A). 7. A statement of Jaipal Singh was recorded u/s 131 of the I. T. Act, 1961 on 26.04.2016, in which in response to question number 4 he stated that, he does not have knowledge of purchased property, the property is in Jasola but he does not remember address and he does

GRAM NIRMAN MANDAL,NAWADA vs. DC/AC EXEMPTION, CIR, PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 11 and after perusing the Manufacturing and Income & Expenditure account, made an addition of ₹3,16,98,714/- to the total income of the assessee after disallowing various expenses from the business income and adding income from house property

SHARDINDU PRASAD SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

House property as per provisions of the joint Land Development agreement. 14. Without prejudice to the above, even if for argument sake, the date of execution and/or registration of the agreement is treated as the date of transfer even then the learned Assessing Officer erred in the manner of computing of the capital gains which is not in the mode

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]

housing loan of Rs. 1,97,16,393/- on 22.03.2016 which is presumably related to any other property as the cost of properly acquired from M/s Bestech (erroneously referred to as Ms Unitech in the show cause notice) itself is merely Rs. 1,11,53, 500/- e. Notwithstanding above, the assessee has claimed total exemption u/s 54F for an amount

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]

housing loan of Rs. 1,97,16,393/- on 22.03.2016 which is presumably related to any other property as the cost of properly acquired from M/s Bestech (erroneously referred to as Ms Unitech in the show cause notice) itself is merely Rs. 1,11,53, 500/- e. Notwithstanding above, the assessee has claimed total exemption u/s 54F for an amount

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]

housing loan of Rs. 1,97,16,393/- on 22.03.2016 which is presumably related to any other property as the cost of properly acquired from M/s Bestech (erroneously referred to as Ms Unitech in the show cause notice) itself is merely Rs. 1,11,53, 500/- e. Notwithstanding above, the assessee has claimed total exemption u/s 54F for an amount

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]

housing loan of Rs. 1,97,16,393/- on 22.03.2016 which is presumably related to any other property as the cost of properly acquired from M/s Bestech (erroneously referred to as Ms Unitech in the show cause notice) itself is merely Rs. 1,11,53, 500/- e. Notwithstanding above, the assessee has claimed total exemption u/s 54F for an amount

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]

housing loan of Rs. 1,97,16,393/- on 22.03.2016 which is presumably related to any other property as the cost of properly acquired from M/s Bestech (erroneously referred to as Ms Unitech in the show cause notice) itself is merely Rs. 1,11,53, 500/- e. Notwithstanding above, the assessee has claimed total exemption u/s 54F for an amount

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

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

Housing of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of E.N. Gopakumar –vs.- CIT reported in 390 ITR 131. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee while impugned the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this fold submitted that the assessee is not disputing about

AJAY KUMAR,PATNA vs. PR. CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

16. 2. The assessee has filed a detailed statement of facts along with eleven grounds of appeal. In brief, his grievance is that the ld. Pr. Commissioner has erred in taking cognizance under section 263 and thereby setting aside the assessment order dated 26.12.2017 passed under section 143(3) in A.Y. 2015-16. He further pleaded that ld. Pr. Commissioner

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

House, Shanti Bhawan, Bank More, Dhanbad-826001, Jharkhand [PAN:AABCB0310L] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, 6th Floor, C.R. (Annexe) Building, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna-800001, Bihar Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 & C.O. Nos. 1 & 2/PAT/2022 (in ITA 62 & 63/PAT/2021) Assessment years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 Broadson Commodities Pvt. Limited Appearances by: Shri

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

House, Shanti Bhawan, Bank More, Dhanbad-826001, Jharkhand [PAN:AABCB0310L] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, 6th Floor, C.R. (Annexe) Building, Bir Chand Patel Marg, Patna-800001, Bihar Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 & C.O. Nos. 1 & 2/PAT/2022 (in ITA 62 & 63/PAT/2021) Assessment years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 Broadson Commodities Pvt. Limited Appearances by: Shri

VIKASH KUMAR,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 6, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 376/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Vikash Kumar,……………..…………….…………Appellant Mansoorganj, Patna City, Patna-800009, Bihar [Pan:Bcjpk6088A] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, Patna,…………………………………...Respondent Bihar Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashok Kumar, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 21, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 10, 2024 O R D E R

house property”, “profit and gains from business or profession” and “income from other sources”. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS to verify the issues on ‘closing stock’ and ‘cash deposits during demonetization period’. Survey proceedings under section 133A were also conducted on 27.02.2017. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued

VIDYA SAGAR SINGH HUF THROUGH KARTA SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 251 by Finance (2) Act, 2024 w.e.f. 01/10/2024. 7. For that the other grounds, if any, shall be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from House Property and other sources for AY 2017-18. The return of income was filed on 28.03.2018 showing total

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

16. The ITAT in the case of Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO, Mumbai, 101 TTJ 1095, analyzed in detail various authoritative pronouncements including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries 243 ITR 83 and has propounded the following broader principle to judge the action of CIT taken under section

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

16. The ITAT in the case of Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO, Mumbai, 101 TTJ 1095, analyzed in detail various authoritative pronouncements including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries 243 ITR 83 and has propounded the following broader principle to judge the action of CIT taken under section