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

90,09,772 and 1,33,60,445/- respectively. Penalty u/s 271 AAA of the Act for A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13 was levied at Rs.36,48,167/- and Rs.25,47,388/- respectively. Perusal of the penalty orders, indicates that there was no compliance by the assessee and even when the assessee challenges the penalty u/s 271

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

90,09,772 and 1,33,60,445/- respectively. Penalty u/s 271 AAA of the Act for A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13 was levied at Rs.36,48,167/- and Rs.25,47,388/- respectively. Perusal of the penalty orders, indicates that there was no compliance by the assessee and even when the assessee challenges the penalty u/s 271

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

90,09,772 and 1,33,60,445/- respectively. Penalty u/s 271 AAA of the Act for A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13 was levied at Rs.36,48,167/- and Rs.25,47,388/- respectively. Perusal of the penalty orders, indicates that there was no compliance by the assessee and even when the assessee challenges the penalty u/s 271

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

90,09,772 and 1,33,60,445/- respectively. Penalty u/s 271 AAA of the Act for A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13 was levied at Rs.36,48,167/- and Rs.25,47,388/- respectively. Perusal of the penalty orders, indicates that there was no compliance by the assessee and even when the assessee challenges the penalty u/s 271

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

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

2,01,83,642/-. The assessee submitted before the Id.\nAO that the penalty proceedings may be dropped as it was suo motto\ndeclared in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act and there was no\nseizure of any incriminating material qua the said income during\nsearch. The plea of the assessee did not find favor with

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

section 275 of the Act, the undersigned is constrained to impose penalty u/s 271AAB(1A) of the Act on the assessee for the said year for the said default. Computation of Penalty u/s 271AAB(1A) is as under:- Assessed income : RS. 4,74,85,650/- 1. Returned income filed by the assessee Rs. 9,85,650/- 2. Additional disclosure

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

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

2 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 M/s. Kumar Construction ld. Assessing Officer has initiated the 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

SURYADEO PRASAD,SIWAN vs. ITO WARD-2 (3), SIWAN

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 144 dated 30.10.2019. Page 2 of 8 I.T.A. No.: 82/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Suryadeo Prasad. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and very perused the record and the submissions made were also examined. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order. 5. We also note that while

AMRENDRA PRATAP SINGH,VARANASI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3(1), GAYA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 16. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an agriculturist and had earnings from sale of agricultural produce. The assessee had given a power of attorney to Sri Satish

ANIL KUMAR SAH,BANKA vs. ITO, WD-1(4), BHAGALPUR, BHAGALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 324/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Anil Kumar Sah,………………………....….………Appellant Near Bari Durga Mandir, Kajreli Road, Amarpur, Dist. Banka-813101, Bihar [Pan:Aqgps8735A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-1(4), Bhagalpur, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, R.N. Plaza, R B S S Road, Bhagalpur-812001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 29, 2025 O R D E R

90 days. Hence the delay is condoned. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income on 10.12.2015 showing total income of Rs.2.88,040/-. The assessee has shown his income from LIC commission, New India Insurance Company & interest income. The return was processed u/s