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) &

37 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under sub-section (1) of section 131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced

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) &

37 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under sub-section (1) of section 131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced

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

37 of 56 I.T.A. Nos. 322-329/Pat/2024, Nalanda Engicon P. Ltd., AY: 2014-15 to 2021-22 on 25.01.2022 u/s. 142(1) to which reply was furnished on 11.03.2022. Again second notice was issued on 04.02.2022 running into 50 pages to which reply was submitted by the assessee on 25.02.2022 running into 88 pages

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

37 of 56 I.T.A. Nos. 322-329/Pat/2024, Nalanda Engicon P. Ltd., AY: 2014-15 to 2021-22 on 25.01.2022 u/s. 142(1) to which reply was furnished on 11.03.2022. Again second notice was issued on 04.02.2022 running into 50 pages to which reply was submitted by the assessee on 25.02.2022 running into 88 pages

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

37 of 56 I.T.A. Nos. 322-329/Pat/2024, Nalanda Engicon P. Ltd., AY: 2014-15 to 2021-22 on 25.01.2022 u/s. 142(1) to which reply was furnished on 11.03.2022. Again second notice was issued on 04.02.2022 running into 50 pages to which reply was submitted by the assessee on 25.02.2022 running into 88 pages

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

37 of 56 I.T.A. Nos. 322-329/Pat/2024, Nalanda Engicon P. Ltd., AY: 2014-15 to 2021-22 on 25.01.2022 u/s. 142(1) to which reply was furnished on 11.03.2022. Again second notice was issued on 04.02.2022 running into 50 pages to which reply was submitted by the assessee on 25.02.2022 running into 88 pages

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

37 of 56 I.T.A. Nos. 322-329/Pat/2024, Nalanda Engicon P. Ltd., AY: 2014-15 to 2021-22 on 25.01.2022 u/s. 142(1) to which reply was furnished on 11.03.2022. Again second notice was issued on 04.02.2022 running into 50 pages to which reply was submitted by the assessee on 25.02.2022 running into 88 pages

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

37 of 56 I.T.A. Nos. 322-329/Pat/2024, Nalanda Engicon P. Ltd., AY: 2014-15 to 2021-22 on 25.01.2022 u/s. 142(1) to which reply was furnished on 11.03.2022. Again second notice was issued on 04.02.2022 running into 50 pages to which reply was submitted by the assessee on 25.02.2022 running into 88 pages

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

37 of 56 I.T.A. Nos. 322-329/Pat/2024, Nalanda Engicon P. Ltd., AY: 2014-15 to 2021-22 on 25.01.2022 u/s. 142(1) to which reply was furnished on 11.03.2022. Again second notice was issued on 04.02.2022 running into 50 pages to which reply was submitted by the assessee on 25.02.2022 running into 88 pages

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

MINTU RANI,PATNA vs. ASSESSEMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

37,51,000/- on account of alleged investment in immovable property, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 5. For that the learned NFAC has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the action of the AO in making addition of Rs 72,54,686/- on account of alleged deposits in the bank accounts, which is wrong

VISHWAMBHAR CHAUDHARI,KATIHAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), KATIHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

property sold was agricultural land and any\ngains on the same was exempt under provision of section 10(37) of the L. T. Act,\n1961. Before the department the assessee duly filed copy of impugned sale deed.\nWithout prejudice to above, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in allowing\ncost of improvement at the rate of Rs. 7500/- per katha

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