DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR vs. NANDKUMAR PRASAD SAH, SARAIYGANJ ROAD, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

business premises of the assessee were conducted simultaneously on 17.09.2020 and therefore, inter linked which implies that the documents marked as GDMIS-59 was impounded during the course of search operation u/s 132 of the I.T. Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna failed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

business premises of the assessee u/s 132 the Act, invocation of Sec 153A in the name of the third party is not justified. Further in the case of Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 & C.O. Nos. 1 & 2/PAT/2022 (in ITA 62 & 63/PAT/2021) Assessment years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 Broadson Commodities Pvt. Limited Kabul Chawla v/s Commissioner of Income-tax (Central

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

business premises of the assessee u/s 132 the Act, invocation of Sec 153A in the name of the third party is not justified. Further in the case of Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 & C.O. Nos. 1 & 2/PAT/2022 (in ITA 62 & 63/PAT/2021) Assessment years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 Broadson Commodities Pvt. Limited Kabul Chawla v/s Commissioner of Income-tax (Central

ACIT vs. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WELFARE HUMAN RESOURCES,

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed while the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

business' of the assessee - Society. In the light of the above, I, therefore, have reason to believe that income of the Society for the A.Y. 2005-06 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act". 5.1 After recording reasons as above, the Ld. AO passed an assessment order dated 29.12.2010. The assessee sought the reasons

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. AJIT KUMAR, BETTIAH

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

business transactions in a day book from January 2017 to July 2017. 3. On the basis of impounded material and ITR filed by the assessee for AY:2017-18, a notice u/s 148 was issued and thereafter scrutiny proceedings started. I.T.A. No.: 239/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ajit Kumar. 4. During the reassessment proceedings, the AO analyzed the impounded materials

SHEKHAR NARAYAN,PATNA vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

income was assessable under the head Business or Profession and the case may be set aside before the Ld. AO so that the assessee may be allowed a proper opportunity of being heard. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back

SHEKHAR NARAYAN,PATNA vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

income was assessable under the head Business or Profession and the case may be set aside before the Ld. AO so that the assessee may be allowed a proper opportunity of being heard. Hence, after examining the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back

USHASHREE DEVI,BHAGALPUR vs. PR.CIT-1, PATNA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 42/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ushashree Devi, Sabjee Chowk, Barari, Bhagalpur - 812003 [Pan: Aeppd6663K] ……….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna – 1, Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna - 800001 ............…..........................…..…..... Respondent

business income from year to year. 10. For that the Id. CIT (A), NFC has erred in not considering and taking into account the submissions, explanation and the material placed before him, along with its written submissions dated 9/2/2021 without considering the merit of the case and upheld the reassessment

RANJEET SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 5 (5), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

business income, would not be questioned if the bank deposits during the demonetization were found to be less than Rs.2,50,000/ (exemption limit of Income tax for the FY 2016-17). 8.9.3 Thus, the fact of availability of cash out of past savings with the Individuals was acknowledged during the demonetization in 2016. It was acknowledged by the CBDT

PUNRASAR JUTE PARK LIMITED,PURNEA vs. CIT, PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

business and is an accommodation entry provider company used for layering of funds. Now it is interesting to note that the assessee has not entered into any transaction with M/s. Ruby Tracom Pvt. Limited and this fact even not disputed by the ld. Assessing Officer. But even then, ld. Assessing Officer has proceeded to carry out reassessment proceeding

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment; such failure cannot be condoned by referring to section292BB of the Act. 4. In the case of CIT Vs. Fomento Finance and Investment(P.) Ltd. [2020] 113taxmann.com 237 (Bombay), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held thatfor block assessment of undisclosed income also, provision of section 142,143(2) and 143(3) of the Act are applicable

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment; such failure cannot be condoned by referring to section292BB of the Act. 4. In the case of CIT Vs. Fomento Finance and Investment(P.) Ltd. [2020] 113taxmann.com 237 (Bombay), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held thatfor block assessment of undisclosed income also, provision of section 142,143(2) and 143(3) of the Act are applicable

KUMAR ARUNODAYA,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6, PATNA [NEW – DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, PATNA], PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment; such failure cannot be condoned by referring to section292BB of the Act. 4. In the case of CIT Vs. Fomento Finance and Investment(P.) Ltd. [2020] 113taxmann.com 237 (Bombay), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held thatfor block assessment of undisclosed income also, provision of section 142,143(2) and 143(3) of the Act are applicable

KUMAR ARUNOSAYA,PATNA vs. A.O., CIRCLE-6, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment; such failure cannot be condoned by referring to section292BB of the Act. 4. In the case of CIT Vs. Fomento Finance and Investment(P.) Ltd. [2020] 113taxmann.com 237 (Bombay), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held thatfor block assessment of undisclosed income also, provision of section 142,143(2) and 143(3) of the Act are applicable

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment; such failure cannot be condoned by referring to section292BB of the Act. 4. In the case of CIT Vs. Fomento Finance and Investment(P.) Ltd. [2020] 113taxmann.com 237 (Bombay), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held thatfor block assessment of undisclosed income also, provision of section 142,143(2) and 143(3) of the Act are applicable

SANJAY KUMAR ,PATNA vs. ITO WARD-4(5) PATNA , PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

business income u/s 44AD of the Act properly and had not got the accounts audited. The total receipt was shown at ₹82,53,000/- but from Form No. 26AS it was found that the TDS u/s 194C of the Act had been made on the balance works contract receipt of ₹77,53,000/-. Since the required details were not filed

ARUN CONSTRUCTION,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAGALPUR

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

reassessing income at Rs.71,93,423/- and not allowing claim of remuneration and interest to partners. 6. We further observe that aggrieved with u/s. 154 order(s) of the Act dt. 11.12.2015 and 15-01-2016 and re-assessment order passed u/s. 147 of the Act dt. 08.12.2106 the assessee preferred appeal(s) before the ld. CIT(A), but, except

ARUN CONSTRUCTION,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAGALPUR

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

reassessing income at Rs.71,93,423/- and not allowing claim of remuneration and interest to partners. 6. We further observe that aggrieved with u/s. 154 order(s) of the Act dt. 11.12.2015 and 15-01-2016 and re-assessment order passed u/s. 147 of the Act dt. 08.12.2106 the assessee preferred appeal(s) before the ld. CIT(A), but, except

DOLLY GHOSH,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassess such income and also 6 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Dolly Ghosh any other income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment and which came to his notice subsequently……………….”. 7. A perusal of the section would indicate that there should be an information possessed by the ld. Assessing Officer, which goad him to form an opinion that income has escaped