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

65 (Guj) (m) Sidh International v CIT (09) 122 TTJ 557 (Ahd) (n) Ramesh P. Modi v. CIT (09) 122 TTJ 566 (Ahd) (o) CIT v. Max India Ltd. (04) 268 ITR 128 (P&H) B. Even invocation of Explanation 2 to sec. 263 is incorrect since AO had made detailed enquiry. Ld. PCIT did not conduct any verification

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

65 (Guj) (m) Sidh International v CIT (09) 122 TTJ 557 (Ahd) (n) Ramesh P. Modi v. CIT (09) 122 TTJ 566 (Ahd) (o) CIT v. Max India Ltd. (04) 268 ITR 128 (P&H) B. Even invocation of Explanation 2 to sec. 263 is incorrect since AO had made detailed enquiry. Ld. PCIT did not conduct any verification

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

65 (Guj) (m) Sidh International v CIT (09) 122 TTJ 557 (Ahd) (n) Ramesh P. Modi v. CIT (09) 122 TTJ 566 (Ahd) (o) CIT v. Max India Ltd. (04) 268 ITR 128 (P&H) B. Even invocation of Explanation 2 to sec. 263 is incorrect since AO had made detailed enquiry. Ld. PCIT did not conduct any verification

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

65 (Guj) (m) Sidh International v CIT (09) 122 TTJ 557 (Ahd) (n) Ramesh P. Modi v. CIT (09) 122 TTJ 566 (Ahd) (o) CIT v. Max India Ltd. (04) 268 ITR 128 (P&H) B. Even invocation of Explanation 2 to sec. 263 is incorrect since AO had made detailed enquiry. Ld. PCIT did not conduct any verification

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

65 (Guj) (m) Sidh International v CIT (09) 122 TTJ 557 (Ahd) (n) Ramesh P. Modi v. CIT (09) 122 TTJ 566 (Ahd) (o) CIT v. Max India Ltd. (04) 268 ITR 128 (P&H) B. Even invocation of Explanation 2 to sec. 263 is incorrect since AO had made detailed enquiry. Ld. PCIT did not conduct any verification

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

65,310/-, Liability for Subcontract from total 11 persons amounting to Rs. 14,53,78,938/- and Liability for Fixed 4 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sriram Enterprises Assets from total 4 persons amounting to Rs. 49,99,619.34. A list containing only names and amounts of sundry creditors was provided by you. However, on perusal of Profit & Loss

PRABHAT KUMAR,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

Appeal is allowed\nfor statistical purposes

1) passed under Section 143(3) of the\nAct by the Id. assessing officer, viz. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCircle-4, Patna, is bad both in law and on facts.\n4. For that the appellant was not given any opportunity, much less sufficient\nopportunity, to put forth his contentions and place evidences henceforth at the time\nof assessment

RAVI BHUSHAN VERMA,BEGUSARAI vs. CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

65,000/-. The CPC, while processing the return by taking into account this value of Rs.66,60,000/ and determined the total income at Rs.73,46,170/- and tax payable at Rs.12,51,663/-. 4.2 The CPC is competent to make the adjustment based on the ITR and it appears that the appellant has filled in wrong figures

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