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

MANOJ KUMAR DAS,BEGUSARAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: 19/07/2025. The Appeal Is Delayed By Around 37 Days. 4. That The Assessee States That The Reason For Delay Is That The Assessee Is Suffering From Hiv Aids & Is Constantly Under Treatment. Copy Of Medical Treatment Is Enclosed.

28 days in the filing of the said appeal. The assessee has requested for condoning the same as under: “1. That this is an application for condonation of delay in the filing of the instant appeal. 2. That the petitioner states that the impugned order was passed on 19/05/2025 by the Id Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) at National Faceless

VIVEK KUMAR RANA,PATNA vs. ASSESSEMENT UNIT, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 115/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Vivek Kumar Rana,…….……….………..………Appellant 101, Artak Apartment, Ashiana Road, B.V. College, S.O. Rukanpura, Patna-800014, Bihar [Pan:Adhpr8630D] -Vs.- Assessment Unit, Delhi,………………….…....Respondent Ito/Nfac, Delhi Appearances By: Shri Manish Sinha, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 24, 2025 O R D E R

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Thus ld. Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.47,99,250/- (income as per return of income filed u/s 139 amounting to Rs.36,28

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

28,630/-. A survey under section 133A was carried out on the business premises of the assessee on 26.09.2018. On the basis of survey report, it was harboured by the ld. Assessing Officer that income has escaped assessment in all these four assessment years and accordingly he issued notice under section 148 of the Income

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

28,630/-. A survey under section 133A was carried out on the business premises of the assessee on 26.09.2018. On the basis of survey report, it was harboured by the ld. Assessing Officer that income has escaped assessment in all these four assessment years and accordingly he issued notice under section 148 of the Income

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

28,630/-. A survey under section 133A was carried out on the business premises of the assessee on 26.09.2018. On the basis of survey report, it was harboured by the ld. Assessing Officer that income has escaped assessment in all these four assessment years and accordingly he issued notice under section 148 of the Income

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

28,630/-. A survey under section 133A was carried out on the business premises of the assessee on 26.09.2018. On the basis of survey report, it was harboured by the ld. Assessing Officer that income has escaped assessment in all these four assessment years and accordingly he issued notice under section 148 of the Income

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

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

VIDYOTMA,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2 (1), SITAMARHI

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to assessment year 2015-16 on the 28-05-2025. Through this appeal should have been filed on or before 27/07/2025. That I, due to illness irregular to open the e-mail and not showing I.T. Portal. As and when I saw my portal thereafter, I am filing my appeal

SAVITA DEVI,SUPAUL, BIHAR, INDIA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), SAHARSA, SAHARSA,BIHAR

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Penalty Oder CIA remarks in Point 2 Sub Point 6,7,8 and Point 5 Last Para where it is clearly mention to follow the Natural Justice principal. 4 The appellant reserves the right to amend, modify, add or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a housewife