MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION INDIA LIMITED,PATNA BIHAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2 PATNA, PATNA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

58,92,600/- 43CA 4. We find the facts on all vital points are common in all these assessment years. Therefore, for the facility of reference, we are taking up the facts mainly from A.Y. Assessment Years: 2014-2015 to 2017-2018 Meridian Construction India Limited 2014-15. The assessee-company at the relevant time was engaged in the business

MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION INDIA LIMITED,PATNA BIHAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2 PATNA, PATNA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

58,92,600/- 43CA 4. We find the facts on all vital points are common in all these assessment years. Therefore, for the facility of reference, we are taking up the facts mainly from A.Y. Assessment Years: 2014-2015 to 2017-2018 Meridian Construction India Limited 2014-15. The assessee-company at the relevant time was engaged in the business

MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION INDIA LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, PATNA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

58,92,600/- 43CA 4. We find the facts on all vital points are common in all these assessment years. Therefore, for the facility of reference, we are taking up the facts mainly from A.Y. Assessment Years: 2014-2015 to 2017-2018 Meridian Construction India Limited 2014-15. The assessee-company at the relevant time was engaged in the business

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

58,254/ - It is clear from the assessment order that CIT(A) has quashed the 147 proceedings without going into merits relying wrongly on 2nd proviso to 147 of IT Act, 1961. The CIT(A) has erred on facts and on law as mentioned in AO's report. 4. On the date of hearing on 03.07.2024, rival contentions were heard

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

4,40,58,124/- made by the Ld. AO. He also deleted the additions of ₹3,52,82,071/- made under section 40A(3) of the Act as the transactions in the impounded documents were out of books and these expenses had not been claimed as a deduction in the books of account and further as the GP had been

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

reassessment proceeding and passing order u/s 147 of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was already completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order of assessment dated 31/03/2016 and that an assessment concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act cannot be reopened u/s 148 of the Act after the expiry

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

reassessment proceeding and passing order u/s 147 of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was already completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order of assessment dated 31/03/2016 and that an assessment concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act cannot be reopened u/s 148 of the Act after the expiry

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

reassessment proceeding and passing order u/s 147 of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was already completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order of assessment dated 31/03/2016 and that an assessment concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act cannot be reopened u/s 148 of the Act after the expiry

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

reassessment proceeding and passing order u/s 147 of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was already completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order of assessment dated 31/03/2016 and that an assessment concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act cannot be reopened u/s 148 of the Act after the expiry

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

reassessment proceeding and passing order u/s 147 of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was already completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order of assessment dated 31/03/2016 and that an assessment concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act cannot be reopened u/s 148 of the Act after the expiry

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

reassessment proceeding and passing order u/s 147 of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was already completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order of assessment dated 31/03/2016 and that an assessment concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act cannot be reopened u/s 148 of the Act after the expiry

MD IFTAKHAR ALAM,ARARIA vs. ITO, PURNEA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 69A of the Income Tax Act 1961. I.T.A. No.: 389/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Md. Iftakhar Alam. 8. That on the facts and in the circumstances discussed above your honor be pleased to adjudicate the subjects case to delete the entire addition under provision of law and facts remained with this case. 9. For that the appellant craves leave

SUNITA DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

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

Bench: this Hon'ble Tribunal. 7. That the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional, nor due to any negligence or laxity on my part, but due to bona fide reasons beyond my control: 8. That I submit that substantial justice should not be denied merely due to procedural delay and that the appeal may be decided on merits. 9. That I humbly request this Hon'ble Tribunal to condone the delay and allow my

58 years, residing at Begma Ki Haveli, Pani Tanki, Khajekalan, Patna City, Patna - 800008, Bihar, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under: 1. That I am the Appellant in the above-mentioned appeal and am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 Sunita Devi AY: 2017-18 2. That the impugned order was passed

BHOLA PRASAD YADAV,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(1), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 148 of the Act. Since the assessee failed to furnish any explanation for the source of cash deposits made during the demonetization period, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') treated the total cash deposits during the period of demonetization as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act and added the same to the income

HARI NARAYAN GUPTA (HUF),PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (5), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

4,24,260/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s\n147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 18.12.2018, for\nthe reason that the income of the assessee to the tune of\n1,33,85,300/- from Long-Term Capital Gain, arising from and with\nrespect to Land Development Agreement (LDA) dated

ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA vs. M/S SUN COMTECH PVT LTD, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

58:50 PM SELL 10 113.20 5000 5660000.00 2 ZINC FUTURES 21/03/201103:59:16 PM SELL 11 113.20 5000 6226000.00 13 ZINC FUTURES 21/03/2011 03:59:55 PM SELL 5 113.20 5000 2830000.00 1 ZINC FUTURES 21/03/201104:00:15 PM SELL 5 113.20 5000 2830000.00 1 ZINC FUTURES 21/03/201104:01:03 PM SELL 5 113.20 5000 2830000.00 1 ZINC FUTURES