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

68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, ld. Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.2,00,04,931/- in A.Y. 2016-17. In A.Y. 2017-18, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has observed that the assessee-company has taken a loan of Rs.1,06,02,895/- from M/s. Trailblazer Edusol (P) Limited and concurring his view with regard

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

reassessment order passed u/s. 147 of the Act is hereby quashed. ITA No. 180/Pat/2023 (AY 2013-14): 13. Both the Ld. Representatives of the parties have submitted that all the facts and issues involved in this appeal are identical to the above discussed assessee’s appeal ITA No. 179/Pat/2023 for AY 2011-12. The identical legal grounds have been taken

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

reassessment order passed u/s. 147 of the Act is hereby quashed. ITA No. 180/Pat/2023 (AY 2013-14): 13. Both the Ld. Representatives of the parties have submitted that all the facts and issues involved in this appeal are identical to the above discussed assessee’s appeal ITA No. 179/Pat/2023 for AY 2011-12. The identical legal grounds have been taken

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

reassessment order passed u/s. 147 of the Act is hereby quashed. ITA No. 180/Pat/2023 (AY 2013-14): 13. Both the Ld. Representatives of the parties have submitted that all the facts and issues involved in this appeal are identical to the above discussed assessee’s appeal ITA No. 179/Pat/2023 for AY 2011-12. The identical legal grounds have been taken

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

reassessment order passed u/s. 147 of the Act is hereby quashed. ITA No. 180/Pat/2023 (AY 2013-14): 13. Both the Ld. Representatives of the parties have submitted that all the facts and issues involved in this appeal are identical to the above discussed assessee’s appeal ITA No. 179/Pat/2023 for AY 2011-12. The identical legal grounds have been taken

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

reassessment order passed u/s. 147 of the Act is hereby quashed. ITA No. 180/Pat/2023 (AY 2013-14): 13. Both the Ld. Representatives of the parties have submitted that all the facts and issues involved in this appeal are identical to the above discussed assessee’s appeal ITA No. 179/Pat/2023 for AY 2011-12. The identical legal grounds have been taken

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

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

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 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

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

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

reassessment order was cancelled. Subsequently, the Ld. AO reopened the assessment by recording reasons on16.04.2009 i.e. after the Ld. CIT(A) had cancelled the assessment made on 19.12.2007 on account of non-service of the notice u/s 143(2) the Act. The reasons recorded on 18.01.2007 for the 1st reopening and those recorded on 16.04.2009 for the 2 nd reopening

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

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

68 was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 wherein the onus of proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditor to the satisfaction of the AO 13 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & C.O. No. 04/PAT/2022 (in ITA No. 110/PAT/2019) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Sonamoti Agrotech Pvt. Limited has entirely shifted to the assessee. In this regard the relevant proviso

MANOJ KUMAR DAS,BEGUSARAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: 19/07/2025. The Appeal Is Delayed By Around 37 Days. 4. That The Assessee States That The Reason For Delay Is That The Assessee Is Suffering From Hiv Aids & Is Constantly Under Treatment. Copy Of Medical Treatment Is Enclosed.

68 read with section 115BBE of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the reassessment proceeding was initiated on the basis

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

reassessment proceeding is questionable and is not sustainable in the eye of law. In the absence of issue and service of notice u/s 143(2) the assessment become null and void. The appellant would like to place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of ACIT v. Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [32 taxmann.com 162] wherein

SHANKAR CONSTRUCTION,PANCHGACHIA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 565/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Shankar Construction,………………..…….……Appellant Panchgachia, Panchgachia-852124, Bihar [Pan:Abofs0800R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….……..……Respondent Ward-3(1), Purnea, Bihar Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashok Kumar, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 18, 2024 O R D E R

section 68 of the Act. In this regard, enquiry was carried out on ITBA, e-filling portal and ITD database and on perusal of 12 Shankar Construction the ITR as filed by the assessee, it was observed that the assessee has not Page 2 of 4 ABOFS0800R SHANKAR CONSTRUCTION Α.Υ. 2016-17 ITBA/AST/F/147/(SCN)2021- 22/1041820954(1) declared such

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

68 on 22/01/2021, the order for which was to be passed within a month from the end of the month in which the application was received by the Ld. AO i.e. by 28.02.2021; but the penalty order was passed much later on 10.02.2022 and no separate order for the application for immunity was passed. It was submitted that the penalty

ZAIMUR RAHMAN,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 read with section 115BBE of the Act and assessed the same under the Act. I.T.A. No.: 321/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Zaimur Rahman. 11. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer, without giving any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, has erred in holding that Rs.11,43,600 shown as sales