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

5,80,56,420/- In the light of the facts and circumstances discussed in foregoing paras, penalty of Rs. 1,93,52,140/- is hereby imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This order is passed with the prior approval of Joint CIT, Central Range- 1, Patna received vide letter no. JCIT/CR-1/Pat/Penalty Approval/2018- 19/1014 dated 27/07/2018

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

5,80,56,420/- In the light of the facts and circumstances discussed in foregoing paras, penalty of Rs. 1,93,52,140/- is hereby imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This order is passed with the prior approval of Joint CIT, Central Range- 1, Patna received vide letter no. JCIT/CR-1/Pat/Penalty Approval/2018- 19/1014 dated 27/07/2018

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

5,80,56,420/- In the light of the facts and circumstances discussed in foregoing paras, penalty of Rs. 1,93,52,140/- is hereby imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This order is passed with the prior approval of Joint CIT, Central Range- 1, Patna received vide letter no. JCIT/CR-1/Pat/Penalty Approval/2018- 19/1014 dated 27/07/2018

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

5,80,56,420/- In the light of the facts and circumstances discussed in foregoing paras, penalty of Rs. 1,93,52,140/- is hereby imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This order is passed with the prior approval of Joint CIT, Central Range- 1, Patna received vide letter no. JCIT/CR-1/Pat/Penalty Approval/2018- 19/1014 dated 27/07/2018

ASHOKA TUBEWELL BORING ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the surrendered income of ₹5 crore and\nlevied the impugned penalty vide its order dated 25th March, 2022. When the\nmatter reached before the first appellate authority, we after considering the\nfacts of the case and examining the same in light of the settled judicial\nprecedence has deleted the impugned penalty. Thought

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. SUBHASH PD. YADAV, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for concealment of income”. 5. Ld. Assessing Officer thereafter imposed a penalty under section 271AAB(1A) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty order is a very brief order, which reads as under:- “A search and seizure operation u/s 132(1) and Survey Operations u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, hereinafter

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

271/-, which included additional income of ₹5,15,000/-. The learned Assessing Officer carried out the assessment proceeding but finally accepted the returned income. In nutshell, there is no difference between the assessed income and the returned income shown in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act. 08. Now, the learned Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

271/-, which included additional income of ₹5,15,000/-. The learned Assessing Officer carried out the assessment proceeding but finally accepted the returned income. In nutshell, there is no difference between the assessed income and the returned income shown in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act. 08. Now, the learned Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

271/-, which included additional income of ₹5,15,000/-. The learned Assessing Officer carried out the assessment proceeding but finally accepted the returned income. In nutshell, there is no difference between the assessed income and the returned income shown in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act. 08. Now, the learned Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

271/-, which included additional income of ₹5,15,000/-. The learned Assessing Officer carried out the assessment proceeding but finally accepted the returned income. In nutshell, there is no difference between the assessed income and the returned income shown in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act. 08. Now, the learned Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

271/-, which included additional income of ₹5,15,000/-. The learned Assessing Officer carried out the assessment proceeding but finally accepted the returned income. In nutshell, there is no difference between the assessed income and the returned income shown in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act. 08. Now, the learned Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

271/-, which included additional income of ₹5,15,000/-. The learned Assessing Officer carried out the assessment proceeding but finally accepted the returned income. In nutshell, there is no difference between the assessed income and the returned income shown in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act. 08. Now, the learned Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings

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

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

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 an assumption

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

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 an assumption

MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION INDIA LIMITED,PATNA BIHAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2 PATNA, PATNA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty for not responding to his notice under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 5. The ld. Assessing Officer has ultimately taken up the assessment proceeding ex parte according to his best judgment provided under section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer has confronted the assessee Assessment Years

MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION INDIA LIMITED,PATNA BIHAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2 PATNA, PATNA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty for not responding to his notice under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 5. The ld. Assessing Officer has ultimately taken up the assessment proceeding ex parte according to his best judgment provided under section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Assessing Officer has confronted the assessee Assessment Years