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

26,54,552/-. Being aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who considered the grounds of appeal, the assessment order and has given its finding as under: 9.9 In view of the above discussion, it is found that the appellant made payment amounting to Rs. 61,12,102/- and duly accounted

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

SUNITA DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

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

Bench: this Hon'ble Tribunal. 7. That the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional, nor due to any negligence or laxity on my part, but due to bona fide reasons beyond my control: 8. That I submit that substantial justice should not be denied merely due to procedural delay and that the appeal may be decided on merits. 9. That I humbly request this Hon'ble Tribunal to condone the delay and allow my

26,24,890/- in income is bad in law.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and is the proprietor of M/s Balajee Polly Packaging and had filed her return of income on 07.11.2017 showing total income of ₹4,52,050/. The return was selected for scrutiny under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS

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

26, 2025 O R D E R Per Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ):- The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 14th March, 2024 passed for Assessment Year 2014-15. 1 Ruban Patliputra Hospital Private Limited 2. The appeal

SANTOSH KUMAR,SUPAUL vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (4), SAHARSA

26,16,814/- by the ld. Assessing Officer and\nconfirmation by the CIT (A) against the returned income of Rs. 306150/- is\nwholly arbitrary, unwarranted, wrong, and illegal and at any rate are\nexcessive.\n6. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case the ld. Assessing\nOfficer has erred in making addition of cash deposited