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 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

M/S VATSA CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 09/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 10/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/S Vatsa Constructions Pvt. Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., Kasturba Path, North S.K. Circle-2, Puri, Patna-800013 Patna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcv2236R Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kausik Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2018 Order These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 06.10.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Patna.

6. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that the income was estimated without pointing out any instance of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271

SANJAY KUMAR MODI,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Sanjay Kumar Modi Acit, Central Circle-3, Patna / 20B, Arya Nagar Colony, Lodi V/S. Katra, Patna City, Patna Pan No.Afupm7073G अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Indrajit Singh, Cit, Dr

11 at page 19 has held that concealment of income an Sanjay Kumar Modi furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty

JOANNA GOKAVI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-1, MOTIHARI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon’Ble Am Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Dr. (Mrs.) Joanna Gokavi Ito, Ward – 1, Motihari / B-19, Anand Niketan, New V/S. Delhi – 110021. Pan No.Amepg 2067 M अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Ajay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr

11 at page 19 has held that concealment of income an Dr. (Mrs.) Joanna Gokavi furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations. The Gujarat High Court in the case of MANU ENGINEERING reported in 122 ITR 306 and the Delhi High Court in the case of VIRGO MARKETING reported in 171 Taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty

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