M/S SATYAM EDUCATIONAL HEALTH & CHARITABLE TRUST,PATNA vs. PR. CIT-CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

properties in the name of Trustees. According to Ld. PCIT, the sheet as per Tally Accounts of the trust were found from the digital data seized /impounded from the residential cum office premises of Shri Shankar Kumar at 2nd & 3rd Floor, Shivam Convent, New Bypass Road, Patna and from perusal of profit and loss account of assessee revealed total receipt

M/S SATYAM EDUCATIONAL HEALTH & CHARITABLE TRUST,PATNA vs. PR. CIT-CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

properties in the name of Trustees. According to Ld. PCIT, the sheet as per Tally Accounts of the trust were found from the digital data seized /impounded from the residential cum office premises of Shri Shankar Kumar at 2nd & 3rd Floor, Shivam Convent, New Bypass Road, Patna and from perusal of profit and loss account of assessee revealed total receipt

M/S SATYAM EDUCATIONAL HEALTH & CHARITABLE TRUST,PATNA vs. PR. CIT-CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

properties in the name of Trustees. According to Ld. PCIT, the sheet as per Tally Accounts of the trust were found from the digital data seized /impounded from the residential cum office premises of Shri Shankar Kumar at 2nd & 3rd Floor, Shivam Convent, New Bypass Road, Patna and from perusal of profit and loss account of assessee revealed total receipt

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]

220(Delhi), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that failureof the Assessing Officer issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act is fatal toorder of reassessment; such failure cannot be condoned by referring to section292BB of the Act. 4. In the case of CIT Vs. Fomento Finance and Investment(P.) Ltd. [2020] 113taxmann.com 237 (Bombay

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]

220(Delhi), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that failureof the Assessing Officer issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act is fatal toorder of reassessment; such failure cannot be condoned by referring to section292BB of the Act. 4. In the case of CIT Vs. Fomento Finance and Investment(P.) Ltd. [2020] 113taxmann.com 237 (Bombay

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]

220(Delhi), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that failureof the Assessing Officer issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act is fatal toorder of reassessment; such failure cannot be condoned by referring to section292BB of the Act. 4. In the case of CIT Vs. Fomento Finance and Investment(P.) Ltd. [2020] 113taxmann.com 237 (Bombay

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]

220(Delhi), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that failureof the Assessing Officer issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act is fatal toorder of reassessment; such failure cannot be condoned by referring to section292BB of the Act. 4. In the case of CIT Vs. Fomento Finance and Investment(P.) Ltd. [2020] 113taxmann.com 237 (Bombay

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]

220(Delhi), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that failureof the Assessing Officer issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act is fatal toorder of reassessment; such failure cannot be condoned by referring to section292BB of the Act. 4. In the case of CIT Vs. Fomento Finance and Investment(P.) Ltd. [2020] 113taxmann.com 237 (Bombay

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.

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

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

220 ITR 456; (ix) CIT -vs.- Anand Kumar Jain 370 ITR 140 (Allahabad); (x) Malabar Ind. Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 83 (SC); (xi) Tara Devi Agarwal -vs.- CIT 88 ITR 323 (SC); (xii) CIT -vs.- South India Shipping Corporation 233 ITR 546 (Mad.) Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited 11. Further reference was also made

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE 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

220 ITR 456; (ix) CIT -vs.- Anand Kumar Jain 370 ITR 140 (Allahabad); (x) Malabar Ind. Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 83 (SC); (xi) Tara Devi Agarwal -vs.- CIT 88 ITR 323 (SC); (xii) CIT -vs.- South India Shipping Corporation 233 ITR 546 (Mad.) Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited 11. Further reference was also made

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

220 ITR 456; (ix) CIT -vs.- Anand Kumar Jain 370 ITR 140 (Allahabad); (x) Malabar Ind. Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 83 (SC); (xi) Tara Devi Agarwal -vs.- CIT 88 ITR 323 (SC); (xii) CIT -vs.- South India Shipping Corporation 233 ITR 546 (Mad.) Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited 11. Further reference was also made

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

220 ITR 456; (ix) CIT -vs.- Anand Kumar Jain 370 ITR 140 (Allahabad); (x) Malabar Ind. Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 83 (SC); (xi) Tara Devi Agarwal -vs.- CIT 88 ITR 323 (SC); (xii) CIT -vs.- South India Shipping Corporation 233 ITR 546 (Mad.) Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited 11. Further reference was also made

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

220 ITR 456; (ix) CIT -vs.- Anand Kumar Jain 370 ITR 140 (Allahabad); (x) Malabar Ind. Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 83 (SC); (xi) Tara Devi Agarwal -vs.- CIT 88 ITR 323 (SC); (xii) CIT -vs.- South India Shipping Corporation 233 ITR 546 (Mad.) Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited 11. Further reference was also made