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

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

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

234B, 234C). Issue demand notice and penalty proceedings are initiated u/s. 271D & u/s. 27IE”. 5. Dissatisfied with this reopening, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal by observing that since 4 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Dolly Ghosh no addition has been made to the total income

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

Section 234B. Since there was long term 5 capital loss so interest u/s 234B should not be levied” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed any return of income for the year under consideration despite entering into and registering a Land Development Agreement with House-Con Consultant & Developer during

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

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

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

3. For that the learned JCIT, Range-6, Patna has not applied his judicial mind before according sanction u/s 151. The approval has been granted for reopening of the assessment in a mechanical manner and without due application of judicial mind. The reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO on basis of mechanical approval is arbitrary, unjustified

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

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

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

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

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