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

RENU DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 672/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Renu Devi,……………………………....….………Appellant D/79, P.C. Colony, Lohia Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna-800020, Bihar [Pan:Algpd4522P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-6(2), Patna Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

31,828/- as interest. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 3. The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee simply confirming the order of the ld. Assessing Officer without giving reasoning as to why specific clauses of the JDA which expressly lays down the condition precedent for transfer

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

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

Bench: the sale of immovable properties on which long term capital gain was derived.

Section 250/250(6B) and the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021 dated 28/12/2021 notified by the CBDT. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has issued a show cause notice u/s 251(2) of the Act dated 17/06/2025 for compliance on 20/06/2025 and thereby denying proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3. For that

KIRAN JAISWAL,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 4(5), PATNA

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

31,25,000/- in immovable property during the relevant assessment year. It is recorded by the Ld. AO that initially some submissions were made in response to notices issued by him but eventually the assessee did not even file any return of income in response the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Due to non-compliance by the assessee during

MEENA GUPTA,PATNA, BIHAR vs. ITO, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No. 506/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 & S.A. No. 15/Pat/2025 (In Ita No. 506/Pat/2025) Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Meena Gupta,……………...……………..……..Appellant House No. 9/N3, Road No. 11, Rajendra Nagar, Rajendra Nagar S.O., (Patna), Sampatchak, Patna-800016, Bihar [Pan:Addpg7557N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-5(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Bhawan, Dakbunglow Chauraha, Patna-800001, Bihar

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 15.03.2022. As per department findings, the assessee has purchased a property amounting to Rs.54,00,000/- during the assessment year, whose government rate was Rs.1,31,25,000/-. Since there is a difference of Rs.77,25,000/- in the consideration value and the government value, the ld. Assessing Officer added

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

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

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

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

Housing Projects Ltd. (supra), find that the ld. Pr. CIT has merely referred to the seized material but has not made any further enquiry about the correctness of such documents, as to whether they belong to the assessee, or pertain to the year under consideration. 28. We find that the learned PCIT in his show cause notice has referred

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

Housing Projects Ltd. (supra), find that the ld. Pr. CIT has merely referred to the seized material but has not made any further enquiry about the correctness of such documents, as to whether they belong to the assessee, or pertain to the year under consideration. 28. We find that the learned PCIT in his show cause notice has referred

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

Housing Projects Ltd. (supra), find that the ld. Pr. CIT has merely referred to the seized material but has not made any further enquiry about the correctness of such documents, as to whether they belong to the assessee, or pertain to the year under consideration. 28. We find that the learned PCIT in his show cause notice has referred

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

Housing Projects Ltd. (supra), find that the ld. Pr. CIT has merely referred to the seized material but has not made any further enquiry about the correctness of such documents, as to whether they belong to the assessee, or pertain to the year under consideration. 28. We find that the learned PCIT in his show cause notice has referred

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

Housing Projects Ltd. (supra), find that the ld. Pr. CIT has merely referred to the seized material but has not made any further enquiry about the correctness of such documents, as to whether they belong to the assessee, or pertain to the year under consideration. 28. We find that the learned PCIT in his show cause notice has referred

GYAN INFRABUILD PVT. LTD,VARANASI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-03, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 175 To 178/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2018-19 Gyan Infrabuild Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of Awlespur, Kandwa Vs Income-Tax (Central), Patna Varanasi - 221006 [Pan: Aaecg0509Mc] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate & Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Even Dt. 26/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2018-19. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. Relevant Content Of The Petition Dt. 08/06/2023 Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “…….. 1. That We Had Received An Order U/S 263 Passed By Id Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Patna On 26.03.2022. 2

Housing Projects Ltd. (supra), find that the ld. Pr. CIT has merely referred to the seized material but has not made any further enquiry about the correctness of such documents, as to whether they belong to the assessee, or pertain to the year under consideration. 28. We find that the learned PCIT in his show cause notice has referred

GYAN INFRABUILD PVT. LTD,VARANASI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-03, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 175 To 178/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2018-19 Gyan Infrabuild Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of Awlespur, Kandwa Vs Income-Tax (Central), Patna Varanasi - 221006 [Pan: Aaecg0509Mc] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate & Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Even Dt. 26/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2018-19. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. Relevant Content Of The Petition Dt. 08/06/2023 Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “…….. 1. That We Had Received An Order U/S 263 Passed By Id Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Patna On 26.03.2022. 2

Housing Projects Ltd. (supra), find that the ld. Pr. CIT has merely referred to the seized material but has not made any further enquiry about the correctness of such documents, as to whether they belong to the assessee, or pertain to the year under consideration. 28. We find that the learned PCIT in his show cause notice has referred