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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. Assessing Officer 2 Renu Devi made an addition of Rs.22,96,688/ on account of capital gain

BAIJU ROY,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-4(2), PATNA

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

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

capital gain : Rs.1,25,05,763/- Total income : Rs.1,27,58,955/- Or Rs.1,27,58,960/- Assessed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on a total income of Rs.1,27,58,960/-. Issue Demand Notice, Challan and a copy of the Order to the assessee. Penalty proceeding u/s 271

DIPAK KUMAR SINGH & SONS HUF,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2), PATNA

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the delay was on account of ignorance of law and the assessee was alerted for filing the appeal only when they received a notice proposing levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the issue of delayed filing with the help of several authorities on the subject and has declined to condone the said delay due to which the appeal was dismissed. 3.1 Further aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the issue of delayed filing with the help of several authorities on the subject and has declined to condone the said delay due to which the appeal was dismissed. 3.1 Further aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before

VIVEK KUMAR RANA,PATNA vs. ASSESSEMENT UNIT, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 115/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Vivek Kumar Rana,…….……….………..………Appellant 101, Artak Apartment, Ashiana Road, B.V. College, S.O. Rukanpura, Patna-800014, Bihar [Pan:Adhpr8630D] -Vs.- Assessment Unit, Delhi,………………….…....Respondent Ito/Nfac, Delhi Appearances By: Shri Manish Sinha, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 24, 2025 O R D E R

capital gain and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Thus ld. Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.47,99,250/- (income as per return of income filed u/s

SHIVENDU SHEKHAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD6(5), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the ld. Assessing Officer was confirmed, despite of the fact that all the communication details like email ID and contact no. was correctly mentioned on the appellant’s portal for the communication of notices/letter/orders and in consequence, the assessee was not able to file appeal against the said order within

SHIVAM ANAND,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD 6(5), PATNA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

capital gain in the hands of the assessee under the provisions of Section 48 of the Act held that the balance tax payable against the assessee is at Rs. 8,49,509/-. A penalty proceeding u/s 271

AJAY KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (3), PATNA, PATNA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty order dated 30/03/2024 under section 271(1)(C) passed by the ITO Ward 4(1), Patna through speed post on 06.04.2024, than appellant immediate consult to another Advocate for filing appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT, Appellant further pray that appellant having great interest in the case. Therefore on the ground of natural justice kindly condone the delay

VIDYOTMA,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2 (1), SITAMARHI

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gain. 4) For that the entire assessment order is bad both in law and facts of the case, 5) For that the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271

ZAIMUR RAHMAN,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Capital Gain. 13. For that the appellate order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the assessment order of the ld. assessing officer is far away from best judgment assessment as envisaged in the Act, for the reason that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer, should have made

AMRENDRA PRATAP SINGH,VARANASI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3(1), GAYA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gain under the Act. 11. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer has erred in holding that the interest aggregating to Rs.1,77,580, being Rs.99,913 credited in ICICI Bank and Rs.77,667 credited in Canara Bank, during the Previous Year 2011-12 corresponding to the Assessment Year

VEENA MISHRA THROUGH NITISH MISHRA,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENT.CIR-1, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceedings under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act in the fact and circumstances of this case and Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the same. 14. For that the ld. Assessing officer has erred in charging interest under the provisions of section 234A, 234B and 234C of the income

I.T.O. vs. M/S KUMAR CONSTRUCLTION,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

penalty under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of the notices at the end of the assessee. Ultimately the ld. Assessing Officer gone through the books of account submitted before her and made these two additions by recording the following finding:- “Addition u/s 40A(3) for payments exceeding Rs.20,000/- through bearer cheques:- On perusal of Books