ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. SONAMOTI AGROTECH PVT LTD, PATNA

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

234B and 234C of the Act. As this ground is consequential in nature, the same do not require separate adjudication. 6. Ground No. 3 to 6: These grounds are general in nature and hence not adjudicated. 7 In the result the appeal for A.Y.2008-09 is allowed”. 14 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & C.O. No. 04/PAT/2022 (in ITA No. 110/PAT/2019) Assessment Year

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

1) along with questionnaire was issued to the assessee on 26/ 11/2019 compliance on 03 12/2019. The assessee filed return of income u/s 148 on 27/12/2019, disclosing total income of Rs.17,07,150/-. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee on 27/12/2019 for compliance on 30/12/2019. The reason of reopening of assessment

ARCHANA,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 4 (1), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceeding has been initiated for making roving and fishing enquiry. The order of assessment as sustained u/s 147 rws 144 rws 144B is arbitrary, unjustified, without jurisdiction, void ab-initio, bad in law, vitiated in law and invalid. The order as passed u/s 147 is fit to be quashed / cancel / annulled. 1.2 For that the order of the assessment

SAROJ DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the Assessment Order dated 16.12.2019 as passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of authorities below is bad in law and on facts. Notice

RAJESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (2), GAYA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234B amounting to Rs.47,71,305/- and Rs.52,05,060/- respectively. 8. For that the appellant may not be treated as assessee in default in respect of the disputed demand including interest amounting to Rs.1,86,61,540/-. 9. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission along with evidences and documents on or before

NITESH DUTT JHA,MADHUBANI vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (5), MADHUBANI

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment invalid. (7) Similarly, the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Thayaballi Mullajeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC) held that improper service of notice invalidates the entire proceedings. In Dr. K.C. Verma v. UOI (2017) 395 ITR 301 (All.), the Allahabad High Court reiterated that service of notice of scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) is mandatory, and without valid

LALMUNI DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1. Section 48. Capital gain was wrongly calculated. My sale consideration was Rs. 6060816 while in assessment order it was wrongly calculated as Rs. 6402144. 2. Section 55. I have purchased land in year 1977 for Rs. 9500. However my cost of acquisition should be taken as lower of stamp duty value and ITA No.: 18/PAT/2025 Assessment Year

PATNA SMART CITY LIMITED,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PTN-W-(21)(91), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234B and 234 C the Act. 10. For that in any view of the matter the order of the learned assessing officer making additions in the manner aforesaid without proper consideration is bad in law and is merit to be set aside. 11. For that other various reasons which may be as under time of hearing” 3. Brief facts

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

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

234B, 234D and 244A is arbitrary and unjustified. The interest component as included in the demand notice is fit to be deleted. ITA No.314 to316/Pat/18 AY 2009-10 Arun Construction Page 4 4. For that the appellant reserves its right to file detailed submission at the time of hearing. 5. For that the appellant craves leave to urge

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

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

234B, 234D and 244A is arbitrary and unjustified. The interest component as included in the demand notice is fit to be deleted. ITA No.314 to316/Pat/18 AY 2009-10 Arun Construction Page 4 4. For that the appellant reserves its right to file detailed submission at the time of hearing. 5. For that the appellant craves leave to urge

SHARDINDU PRASAD SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. b. The other grounds of appeal here under are urged without prejudice to one another: 1. On the facts & circumstances of the case, the order of the learned Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction and is void ab-initio as he has erred in initiating proceedings u/s 147 148 without existence

RAJEEV RANJAN,NALANDA vs. I.T.O., WARD 2(3), BIHARSHARIF

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 123/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Rajeev Ranjan, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O Sita Ram Singh, Garhpar, Ward-2(3), Bihar Sharif, Nalanda-803101 Bihar Sharif (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agcpr5450R Assessee By : Sh. A. K. Rastogi & Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Advs. Revenue By : Sh. Abhay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 16 .03.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.06.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Patna.

234B & 234D amounting to Rs.31,524/- and Rs.19,832/- are wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case. 9. For that the whole order is bad in fact and law of the case and is fit to be annulled. 10. For that other grounds, if any, shall be urged at the time

AJAY KUMAR,SARAN, BIHAR vs. ITO, CHAPRA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234B is unsustainable in law being mechanical and without the sanction of law. 8. For that, the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the I.T Act, 1961 is wholly arbitrary and unjustified. 9. For that, the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the I.T Act, 1961 is wholly arbitrary and unjustified. 10. For that, the appellant craves