SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 271(1)(b) in view of order of the Jurisdictional Tribunal directly on the issue which has been followed in umpteen numbers of orders of the Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna. 5. For that the sustenance of penalty by CIT (A) NFAC is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 271(1)(b) in view of order of the Jurisdictional Tribunal directly on the issue which has been followed in umpteen numbers of orders of the Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna. 5. For that the sustenance of penalty by CIT (A) NFAC is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 271(1)(b) in view of order of the Jurisdictional Tribunal directly on the issue which has been followed in umpteen numbers of orders of the Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna. 5. For that the sustenance of penalty by CIT (A) NFAC is wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case

BIJAY KUMAR SARAF,DALDALI BAZAR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. DC/AC CIRCLE 1,MUZFFARPUR, IT-OFFICE, POLICE LINE, SIKANDERPUR MUZZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act was also filed. It was stated that the Ld. CIT(A) sustained part of the disallowance even though the assessee was not liable for deduction of any TDS as the assessee is trading in sugar and the liability for deduction did not arise as only if the aggregate payment

M/S NORTH BIHAR DISTRIBUTOR,PURNEA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. For that the humble appellant craves leave of the Hon’ble ITAT to take, raise, press, plead and/or argue any other ground or grounds which may arise during the course of hearing of the appeal. “ (b) in ITA No. 68/Pat/2020: 1. The learned AO & CIT (A) have grossly erred in taking

M/S NORTH BIHAR DISTRIBUTOR,PURNEA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. For that the humble appellant craves leave of the Hon’ble ITAT to take, raise, press, plead and/or argue any other ground or grounds which may arise during the course of hearing of the appeal. “ (b) in ITA No. 68/Pat/2020: 1. The learned AO & CIT (A) have grossly erred in taking

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

deduction u/s 54B & 54F during assessment proceeding. Further, the assessee turned and claimed exemption u/s 10(37) quoting circular No.36/2016 in his written submission. Further, a show-cause I etter dated 29.11.2018 was issued to the assessee for compliance on or before 7.12.2018 as to why not Rs. 1,25,05,763/-received as compensation for acquisition of land

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

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 and demanded tax of Rs.4,73,118/- and Rs.2,31,828/- as interest. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). 3. The Ld. Addl./JCIT

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

AL-RABIA MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL WELFARE & TRUST,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, but in this quantum appeal, it is a premature ground. The assessee would receive independent show- cause notice for that purpose and would contest in the penalty proceeding. Therefore, these three grounds are rejected. 3. In response to the notice of hearing, Shri Rajiv Kumar, ld. Counsel for the assessee appeared

RUBAN PATLIPUTRA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. CIT, PATNA

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. 653/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Ruban Patliputra Hospital Private Limited,……………………………………….………Appellant 19, Patliputra Colony, Patna-800013, Bihar [Pan:Aafcr2222R] -Vs.- Nfac,…………………………………………….…...Respondent New Delhi, Appearances By: Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Sm. Rinku Singh, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 26, 2025 O R D E R

u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee filed its ITR for AY 2014-15 on 26.04.2021. Accordingly notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 29.06.2021 sending the reasons for reopening the assessment and also requiring the assessee to furnish necessary details and justification for claim of deduction under section 35AD of the Act. It was noteworthy