PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

6,56,65,495/- (ii) Returned income Rs. 96,03,759/- (iii) Tax on (i) above including surcharge Rs. 2,23,19,702/- (iv) Tax on (ii) above including surcharge Rs. 29,67,562/- (v) Undisclosed income declared by the assessee and further amount determined by the Hon'ble ITSC

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

6,56,65,495/- (ii) Returned income Rs. 96,03,759/- (iii) Tax on (i) above including surcharge Rs. 2,23,19,702/- (iv) Tax on (ii) above including surcharge Rs. 29,67,562/- (v) Undisclosed income declared by the assessee and further amount determined by the Hon'ble ITSC

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

6,56,65,495/- (ii) Returned income Rs. 96,03,759/- (iii) Tax on (i) above including surcharge Rs. 2,23,19,702/- (iv) Tax on (ii) above including surcharge Rs. 29,67,562/- (v) Undisclosed income declared by the assessee and further amount determined by the Hon'ble ITSC

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

6,56,65,495/- (ii) Returned income Rs. 96,03,759/- (iii) Tax on (i) above including surcharge Rs. 2,23,19,702/- (iv) Tax on (ii) above including surcharge Rs. 29,67,562/- (v) Undisclosed income declared by the assessee and further amount determined by the Hon'ble ITSC

ANIL KUMAR,WEST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), BETTIAH

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 144/147 and penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 21.12.2017 and 30.05.2018, respectively. Since the issues in both the appeals are related to the same assessee, both the appeals were heard together and I.T.A. Nos.: 261 & 262/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anil Kumar. are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience

ANIL KUMAR,WEST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), BETTIAH

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 144/147 and penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 21.12.2017 and 30.05.2018, respectively. Since the issues in both the appeals are related to the same assessee, both the appeals were heard together and I.T.A. Nos.: 261 & 262/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anil Kumar. are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience

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

penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) I.T.A. Nos.: 216, 217 & 218/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Yadav and 271(1)(b) of the Act respectively. Since all these appeals were taken up together, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before

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

penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) I.T.A. Nos.: 216, 217 & 218/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Yadav and 271(1)(b) of the Act respectively. Since all these appeals were taken up together, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before

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

penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) I.T.A. Nos.: 216, 217 & 218/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Yadav and 271(1)(b) of the Act respectively. Since all these appeals were taken up together, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before

RANJEET KUMAR (INDIVIDUAL),BEGUSARAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2 (1), BEGUSARAI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

6. For that the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal on merits on the basis of available facts on record has failed to take into consideration the grounds of appeal as pleaded by the appellant in Form 35 and statement of facts mentioned therein. 7. For that the appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause in not making

SH. MHESHWAR SINGH,VAISHALI vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (3), VAISHALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee isallowed for statistical purposes

11,75,000/- under section 69A on account of alleged unexplained money having regard to deposit of cash amounting to Rs. 15,35,000/- in Appellant's Bank Account and charging tax on the same under Section 115BEE of the Act, is based on misappreciation of facts and needs to be deleted, as such. 3.1 That the learned NFAC

BIHAR MEDICAL SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals preferred by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Assessing Officer to the notices issued by him. It is seen that even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not make any worthwhile presentation except that written submissions were filed in which it was mentioned that compliance could not be made before the Ld. Assessing Officer because a number of staff were suffering from COVID and hence were not alert enough to make proper representation before the Revenue Authorities. However, going by the fact that even before the Ld. CIT(A) ther

penalty under Section 271((1)(b) of the Act levied on account of no response being filed before the Assessing Officer to the notices issued by him. It is seen that even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not make any worthwhile presentation except that written submissions were filed in which it was mentioned that compliance could

BIHAR MEDICAL SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, both the appeals preferred by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Assessing Officer to the notices issued by him. It is seen that even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not make any worthwhile presentation except that written submissions were filed in which it was mentioned that compliance could not be made before the Ld. Assessing Officer because a number of staff were suffering from COVID and hence were not alert enough to make proper representation before the Revenue Authorities. However, going by the fact that even before the Ld. CIT(A) ther

penalty under Section 271((1)(b) of the Act levied on account of no response being filed before the Assessing Officer to the notices issued by him. It is seen that even before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not make any worthwhile presentation except that written submissions were filed in which it was mentioned that compliance could

AMIT KUMAR VERMA,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6(1), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 8. For that the order of the CIT (Appeal) and assessment order passed by the Id. Assessing officer is wrong, arbitrary and unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case and is bad in law as well as fact

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

SHARDINDU PRASAD SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceeding U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and its confirmation by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by dismissing the appellant appeal in his order U/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This order is the subject matter of this 2nd appeal. B. APPELLANT SUBMISSION ON GROUNDS OF APPEAL Though numbers of grounds

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

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

u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30.01.2024. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. I.T.A. No.: 321/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Zaimur Rahman. 2. For that the appellate order dated 30/05/2025 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076580474