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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, any satisfaction has been recorded by the learned AO. For reference we would like to reproduce below the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10, and the same reads as under:- “A search and seizure operation was conducted on 29/07/2011 in the business and residential premises

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, any satisfaction has been recorded by the learned AO. For reference we would like to reproduce below the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10, and the same reads as under:- “A search and seizure operation was conducted on 29/07/2011 in the business and residential premises

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, any satisfaction has been recorded by the learned AO. For reference we would like to reproduce below the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10, and the same reads as under:- “A search and seizure operation was conducted on 29/07/2011 in the business and residential premises

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, any satisfaction has been recorded by the learned AO. For reference we would like to reproduce below the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2009-10, and the same reads as under:- “A search and seizure operation was conducted on 29/07/2011 in the business and residential premises

SAMASTIPUR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK,PATNA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, DARBHANGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.32/Pat/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Merged With Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank)……………....Appellant C/O Nirmal & Associates, Ca, Nepali Kothi, Opp Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001. [Pan: Aafas8891R] Vs. Dcit, Circle-3, Darbhanga..…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 1St, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Regional Rural Bank & Had Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Deduction On Account Of Brought Forward Losses & Deductions U/S 80P Of The Act. The Deduction U/S 80P Was Withdrawn From The Statute W.E.F Asst Year 2007-08. Accordingly, In The Present Case Of The Assessee, Assessment Was Framed By Disallowing The Claim Of Brought Forward Losses & Deduction U/S 80P Of The Act.

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is regional rural bank and had filed its return of income declaring Nil income after claiming deduction on account of brought forward losses and deductions u/s 80P of the Act. The deduction u/s 80P was withdrawn from the statute w.e.f Asst Year

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

BASUDEV PRASAD GUPTA,KISHANGANJ vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee contended that he is engaged in the business of seasonal products and stone chips from which gross turnover of Rs.26,03,000/- was achieved. The assessee has declared income of Rs.2,81,328/-. The ld. Assessing Officer has observed that a cash deposit of Rs.75

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

61,631/- 4,53,94,889/- 4,88,71,784/- 2,58,12,701/- expenditure in construction of building based on the valuation report of Mr. S.P. Singh, approved valuer u/s 69C Addition u/s 70,31,800/- 67,40,000/- 1,75,40,000/- 58,92,600/- 43CA 4. We find the facts on all vital points are common

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

61,631/- 4,53,94,889/- 4,88,71,784/- 2,58,12,701/- expenditure in construction of building based on the valuation report of Mr. S.P. Singh, approved valuer u/s 69C Addition u/s 70,31,800/- 67,40,000/- 1,75,40,000/- 58,92,600/- 43CA 4. We find the facts on all vital points are common

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

61,631/- 4,53,94,889/- 4,88,71,784/- 2,58,12,701/- expenditure in construction of building based on the valuation report of Mr. S.P. Singh, approved valuer u/s 69C Addition u/s 70,31,800/- 67,40,000/- 1,75,40,000/- 58,92,600/- 43CA 4. We find the facts on all vital points are common

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

61,631/- 4,53,94,889/- 4,88,71,784/- 2,58,12,701/- expenditure in construction of building based on the valuation report of Mr. S.P. Singh, approved valuer u/s 69C Addition u/s 70,31,800/- 67,40,000/- 1,75,40,000/- 58,92,600/- 43CA 4. We find the facts on all vital points are common

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

61,12,102/- and duly accounted in the books of accounts under the head freight charges. After examination of the said details, it is found that the appellant has non-compliance of TDS amounting to Rs. 55,19,700/- ( Rs. 54,59,700/- u/s 194C and Rs. 60,000/- u/s 194J) on the account of freight charges. Hence, the said

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

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

penalty proceeding under the provisions of\nsection 271 (1) (b) & 271 (1) (c) of the Act.\n15. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case the ld. Assessing\nOfficer has erred in charging interest under the provisions of section 234A,\n234B & 234C without making any provisions in the order of assessment\nthere on.\n16. For that