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

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

SEEMA SRIVASTAVA,PATNA vs. ITO,DC/AC-6, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

property shown by the assessee was not a residential house. Further, the exemption u/s 54F of the Act was also not allowed as the assessee neither claimed any exemption u/s 54F of the Act nor had provided any details regarding all the applicable conditions deemed to be fulfilled as required u/s 54F of the Act. Accordingly, the exemption

USHASHREE DEVI,BHAGALPUR vs. PR.CIT-1, PATNA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 42/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ushashree Devi, Sabjee Chowk, Barari, Bhagalpur - 812003 [Pan: Aeppd6663K] ……….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna – 1, Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna - 800001 ............…..........................…..…..... Respondent

house property, business income from dairy, and from bank & postal interest under section 44AD when maintenance of books of account was not required and the Id. CIT (A) erred in not considering the submissions made by the appellant. 13. For that for other grounds, if any, to be urged at the time of hearing the orders as passed

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

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), NAGPUR vs. KHARE AND TARKUNDE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roydcit, Central Circle-2(1), Khare & Tarkunde Nagpur Vs Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 235, Shivaji Complex, Dharmpeth, Nagpur Pan : Aaack 7184 N Department Assessee Assessee By : Shri Sachin V. Luthra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2026 O R D E R

35,000 - 6,51,63,000) added to the total income of the assessee u/s. 43CA of the Act. 4. Assailing the above order of Ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee allowed this ground of appeal holding that addition made by the Ld. AO u/s. 43CA

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

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

35,950/-. This return was selected for a limited scrutiny through CASS and the items, which are required to be scrutinized, are mentioned by the ld. Assessing Officer as under:- (i) Interest expenses; (ii) Sales turnover mismatch; and (iii) Increase in Capital. The ld. Assessing Officer had issued show-cause notice under section 143(2), which was duly served upon

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

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 Appearances by: Shri Ankit Kumar, C.A., appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Manab Adak, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date

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

SRIRAM ENTERPRISES,PATNA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 76/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sriram Enterprises,………………………..........Appellant C/O. Nirmal & Associates, Nepali Kothi, Opposite Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001 [Pan:Aarfs8853J] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna,…………………………………..……………..Respondent, Bihar-800001 Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 5Th March, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 8Th, 2024 O R D E R

35,48,88,327.94 and Sub-Contract Charges amounting to Rs. 19,02,77,614/-. The Liability for Goods & Services is 39% of expenses for consumption of raw materials and Liability for Sub-Contract is 76% of sub-contract charges which is unusual. x x x x x x x x x x x x …………… Detail of Sundry Creditors above

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

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 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