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) &

house at Patna of Md. A.A. Karim. The income tax department not even saw those diaries which were seized by police and also without any explanation of the appellant without providing the copies of diaries for explanation. Therefore, failure of Income Tax Department for providing those diaries the basis of which the additions of undisclosed income by giving certain absolute

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) &

house at Patna of Md. A.A. Karim. The income tax department not even saw those diaries which were seized by police and also without any explanation of the appellant without providing the copies of diaries for explanation. Therefore, failure of Income Tax Department for providing those diaries the basis of which the additions of undisclosed income by giving certain absolute

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) &

house at Patna of Md. A.A. Karim. The income tax department not even saw those diaries which were seized by police and also without any explanation of the appellant without providing the copies of diaries for explanation. Therefore, failure of Income Tax Department for providing those diaries the basis of which the additions of undisclosed income by giving certain absolute

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR vs. M/S R.P.RAI ESTATE PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur M/S. R.P. Rai Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs 19, Goharua, Patliputra Colony, Patliputra, Patna- 800013. Pan: Aaccr 4972 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit, Dr Respondent By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.06.2020 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

house property. Further, estimated the income of the assessee applying net profit of 8% on the gross contract receipts of Rs. 2,39,81,246/- which works out to be Rs. 19,18,500/-. The ld. AO therefore assessed the income of the assessee to Rs. 2,07,82,680/- is against declared total income

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

house property. The total income was assessed at ₹ 3,16,98,714/-. 5. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals), who considered the facts of the case and noted that despite issuing four notices for hearing, no reply was filed, therefore, the appeal was dismissed on account of non-prosecution. 6. Aggrieved

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

VIJAYA SINGH,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1), PATNA, PATNA, BIHAR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 519/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Vijaya Singh,…………………………...….………Appellant M-55/22A, S.K. Nagar, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Asups6086N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………......Respondent Ward-6(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Jay Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-800001, Bihar

house property’ and the assessee has also declared the agricultural income of Rs.39,45,200/- during the FY under consideration. As the assessee failed to establish the agriculture income as claimed by her in the return of income, therefore, it was concluded that the agricultural income shown by the assessee is nothing but unexplained money. The amount of Rs.39

SRIRAM ENTERPRISES,BHAGALPUR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, PATNA, PATNA

house property,\nprofit of ₹12,16,69,526/- from business and ₹1,12,438/- as income\nfrom other sources. There are two partners of the assessee-firm namely,\n1. Shri Shiv Kumar Agarwal and 2. Shri Roshan Kumar Agarwal. The\nreturn was selected for complete scrutiny under Computer Assisted\nScrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS') and statutory notices

YOGENDRA PRASAD SHARMA,PATNA vs. DC/AC CIRCLE-6, , PATNA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.06/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Yogendra Prasad Sharma………………………………………..………….……Appellant 0 Matukdhari Niwas, West Boring Canal Road Boring Road, Patna-800001. [Pan: Aoppd7881R] Vs. Dc/Ac, Circle-6, Patna……..……....….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sagar Warsi, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 10, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 30.05.2024 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. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 160 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.11,32,280/-

30% of entire collections are expenditure for every year. Therefore, net Agricultural income for each year is Rs.5,96,400/- 3. Since last 3-4 years, we were planning to construct new house for the family. Therefore being head of the family, I was told to collect and aggregate entire amount for construction purpose. As it was not my income

KAMLESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD- 6 (4), PATNA

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

Property Act, 1882,\nthus the capital Gain as assumed, ascertained and computed/calculated\nhypothetically by the Ld. A.O. only on the basis of so called development\nagreement and possibility of fulfilment of terms and conditions thereof has\ncaused miscarriage of justice which cannot be sustainable under the\nprovisions of law.\nAnd, in support of the above facts

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

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

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

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

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

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

30. However, it is an admitted fact that the Learned ACIT had duly examined each of the allegations stated in the notice under section 263 as is evident from the notice of the Learned ACIT issued under section 142(1) of the Act dated 11-11- 2019, a copy thereof is placed at pages24

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

30. However, it is an admitted fact that the Learned ACIT had duly examined each of the allegations stated in the notice under section 263 as is evident from the notice of the Learned ACIT issued under section 142(1) of the Act dated 11-11- 2019, a copy thereof is placed at pages24

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

30. However, it is an admitted fact that the Learned ACIT had duly examined each of the allegations stated in the notice under section 263 as is evident from the notice of the Learned ACIT issued under section 142(1) of the Act dated 11-11- 2019, a copy thereof is placed at pages24