M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

4.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section, as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012.] 2.6 A plain reading of this provision makes it abundantly clear that if the Assessing Officer has reason

MADHURI DEVI,SAHARSA vs. ITO WARD- 3 (4), SAHARSA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment notice would be without jurisdiction. 4. For that, the Learned AO has erred in framing assessment proceeding without issuing/serving Notice under section 143(2). The Ld AO never issued /served notice u/s 142(1) till date of passing of re-assessment order. 5. For that the Learned AO has erred in making addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA, C.R. BUILDING, PATNA vs. DEEPSHREE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., SAGUNA KHAGAUL DANAPUR PATNA

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

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

4) Save as provided in section 256, orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal on appeal shall be final.” It is clear that the National Thermal Power Corporation case (supra) merely codifies the inherent power of ITAT in the admission of additional grounds of appeal. However, it may not be appropriate to juxtapose the directives in the said case

SANGAM ALMIRAH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUZAFFARPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2018-19 dated 10.06.2025, which has been passed against the penalty order u/s 270A of the Act, dated 10.02.2022. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the orders of the authorities below

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2013-14 dated I.T.A. No.338/PAT/2023, AY: 2013-14 Archana. 06.10.2023, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 147/144/144B of the Act, dated 29.03.2022. None appeared on behalf of the assessee and the appeal was heard with the assistance

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

4) of the Act. Further Section 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal I.T.A. No.: 171/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajesh Kumar. in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section

KAMLESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD- 6 (4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraι.Τ.Α. No.: 147/Pat/2025

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for AY 2015-16 dated 27.01.2025, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 26.02.2019. Page 2 Ι.Τ.Α. No.: 147/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2016-17 dated 21.07.2023, which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 16.12.2019. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 591 days. An application along with

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 2(1) PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for Assessment Year 2013-14 by the Ld. First Appellate Authority, viz. the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) at National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, is bad both in law and on facts. 3. For that the order of assessment dated 02/08/2016 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/AST/M/147/2019-20/1021871020 passed under

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIR-2, P)ATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for Assessment Year 2013-14 by the Ld. First Appellate Authority, viz. the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) at National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, is bad both in law and on facts. 3. For that the order of assessment dated 02/08/2016 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/AST/M/147/2019-20/1021871020 passed under

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN.LTD.,PATNA vs. CIT (APPEAL), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for Assessment Year 2013-14 by the Ld. First Appellate Authority, viz. the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) at National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, is bad both in law and on facts. 3. For that the order of assessment dated 02/08/2016 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/AST/M/147/2019-20/1021871020 passed under

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for Assessment Year 2013-14 by the Ld. First Appellate Authority, viz. the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) at National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, is bad both in law and on facts. 3. For that the order of assessment dated 02/08/2016 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/AST/M/147/2019-20/1021871020 passed under

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, COR-2, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for Assessment Year 2013-14 by the Ld. First Appellate Authority, viz. the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) at National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, is bad both in law and on facts. 3. For that the order of assessment dated 02/08/2016 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/AST/M/147/2019-20/1021871020 passed under

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for Assessment Year 2013-14 by the Ld. First Appellate Authority, viz. the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) at National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, is bad both in law and on facts. 3. For that the order of assessment dated 02/08/2016 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/AST/M/147/2019-20/1021871020 passed under

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2018-19 dated 29.05.2023, which has I.T.A. No.: 248/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Nandkumar Prasad Sah. been passed against the assessment order u/s 153A of the Act, dated 30.03.2022. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S AL-KARIM EDUCATIONAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act’), for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 (ITA Nos. 67 &68/Pat/2021) and Assessment Years 2014-15 (ITA No. 69 & 70/Pat/2021). As the issues raised are common and facts are identical, we dispose of all these appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. First we take

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. NUZHAT NASREEN, L/H AHMAD ASHFAQUEKARIM OF NUZHAT NASREEN, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act’), for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 (ITA Nos. 67 &68/Pat/2021) and Assessment Years 2014-15 (ITA No. 69 & 70/Pat/2021). As the issues raised are common and facts are identical, we dispose of all these appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. First we take

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S AL-KARIM EDUCATIONAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act’), for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 (ITA Nos. 67 &68/Pat/2021) and Assessment Years 2014-15 (ITA No. 69 & 70/Pat/2021). As the issues raised are common and facts are identical, we dispose of all these appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. First we take

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. AHMAD ASHFAQUE KARIM, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act’), for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 (ITA Nos. 67 &68/Pat/2021) and Assessment Years 2014-15 (ITA No. 69 & 70/Pat/2021). As the issues raised are common and facts are identical, we dispose of all these appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. First we take