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

70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum.)] Page 13 of 56 I.T.A. Nos. 322-329/Pat/2024, Nalanda Engicon P. Ltd., AY: 2014-15 to 2021-22 b) Arun Kumar Garg HUF v. PCIT – ITA 3391/ Del/ 18 dt. 8.1.2019 c) Rajgul Credit Invest (P) Ltd. V. PCIT – ITA 2519/Del/ 2019 dt. 19.9.2019 d) Kems Services Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT – ITA 120,121 & 122/Pat/2017

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

70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum.)] Page 13 of 56 I.T.A. Nos. 322-329/Pat/2024, Nalanda Engicon P. Ltd., AY: 2014-15 to 2021-22 b) Arun Kumar Garg HUF v. PCIT – ITA 3391/ Del/ 18 dt. 8.1.2019 c) Rajgul Credit Invest (P) Ltd. V. PCIT – ITA 2519/Del/ 2019 dt. 19.9.2019 d) Kems Services Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT – ITA 120,121 & 122/Pat/2017

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

70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum.)] Page 13 of 56 I.T.A. Nos. 322-329/Pat/2024, Nalanda Engicon P. Ltd., AY: 2014-15 to 2021-22 b) Arun Kumar Garg HUF v. PCIT – ITA 3391/ Del/ 18 dt. 8.1.2019 c) Rajgul Credit Invest (P) Ltd. V. PCIT – ITA 2519/Del/ 2019 dt. 19.9.2019 d) Kems Services Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT – ITA 120,121 & 122/Pat/2017

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

70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum.)] Page 13 of 56 I.T.A. Nos. 322-329/Pat/2024, Nalanda Engicon P. Ltd., AY: 2014-15 to 2021-22 b) Arun Kumar Garg HUF v. PCIT – ITA 3391/ Del/ 18 dt. 8.1.2019 c) Rajgul Credit Invest (P) Ltd. V. PCIT – ITA 2519/Del/ 2019 dt. 19.9.2019 d) Kems Services Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT – ITA 120,121 & 122/Pat/2017

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

70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum.)] Page 13 of 56 I.T.A. Nos. 322-329/Pat/2024, Nalanda Engicon P. Ltd., AY: 2014-15 to 2021-22 b) Arun Kumar Garg HUF v. PCIT – ITA 3391/ Del/ 18 dt. 8.1.2019 c) Rajgul Credit Invest (P) Ltd. V. PCIT – ITA 2519/Del/ 2019 dt. 19.9.2019 d) Kems Services Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT – ITA 120,121 & 122/Pat/2017

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]

70 ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya taxmann.com 265 (Chandigarh-Trib) and CIT vs. Bihari Lal Agarwal (2013) 33 taxmann.com 553 (Allahabad) have decided the issue that assessment framed is invalid sans notice u/s 143(2) of the Act which were also referred

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]

70 ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya taxmann.com 265 (Chandigarh-Trib) and CIT vs. Bihari Lal Agarwal (2013) 33 taxmann.com 553 (Allahabad) have decided the issue that assessment framed is invalid sans notice u/s 143(2) of the Act which were also referred

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]

70 ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya taxmann.com 265 (Chandigarh-Trib) and CIT vs. Bihari Lal Agarwal (2013) 33 taxmann.com 553 (Allahabad) have decided the issue that assessment framed is invalid sans notice u/s 143(2) of the Act which were also referred

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]

70 ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya taxmann.com 265 (Chandigarh-Trib) and CIT vs. Bihari Lal Agarwal (2013) 33 taxmann.com 553 (Allahabad) have decided the issue that assessment framed is invalid sans notice u/s 143(2) of the Act which were also referred

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]

70 ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya taxmann.com 265 (Chandigarh-Trib) and CIT vs. Bihari Lal Agarwal (2013) 33 taxmann.com 553 (Allahabad) have decided the issue that assessment framed is invalid sans notice u/s 143(2) of the Act which were also 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

Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for holding the order was erroneous he has not made

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

Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for holding the order was erroneous he has not made

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

Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for holding the order was erroneous he has not made

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

Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for holding the order was erroneous he has not made

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

Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for holding the order was erroneous he has not made

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

CHHAYA DEVI,MUZAFFARPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 437/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Chhaya Devi,………….…………………….………Appellant New Area Sikandarpur, Muzaffarpur-842001, Bihar [Pan:Aakpd7640M] -Vs.- National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nfac)…………………………………………….....Respondent New Delhi Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

house property, business and other sources and claimed deduction under section 10AA of the I.T. Act. A series of notices under section 142(1) totaling eight in numbers, were issued along with questionnaire which were complied from time to time. The appellant alsosought hearing through video conference which was conducted on 26.08.2021. Certain queries were made during video conferencing, which

DHARMENDRA KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 4(2), 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. 709/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Dharmendra Kumar,…………………...….………Appellant E/74, Krishna Building, Patliputra Road, Patna-800013, Bihar [Pan:Anppk4627D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-4(2), Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 4Th Floor, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-800001, Bihar

house property and other sources. The case was selected for limited scrutiny assessment through CASS to examine cash deposit during the demonetization period. Accordingly statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act were issued and served on the assessee. The assessee received Rs.6,50,000/- in cash through the sale of old Mahindra Scropio