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

80-IA of the Act on interest income and other income booked under the head "Other Income", which was not allowable. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened within the meaning of section 147 of the Act after recording reasons and obtaining prior approval from the competent authority. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued

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

80-IA of the Act on interest income and other income booked under the head "Other Income", which was not allowable. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened within the meaning of section 147 of the Act after recording reasons and obtaining prior approval from the competent authority. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued

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

80-IA of the Act on interest income and other income booked under the head "Other Income", which was not allowable. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened within the meaning of section 147 of the Act after recording reasons and obtaining prior approval from the competent authority. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued

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

80-IA of the Act on interest income and other income booked under the head "Other Income", which was not allowable. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened within the meaning of section 147 of the Act after recording reasons and obtaining prior approval from the competent authority. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued

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.

80 (Ker); Venad Properties (P) Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 340 ITR 463 (Del) and Mayawati v. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 349 (Del). 3.5 In view of these particular facts of the present case, it has to be decided whether notice under Section 148 of the Act is a jurisdictional requirement. The relevant portion of Section

PUNRASAR JUTE PARK LIMITED,PURNEA vs. CIT, PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment the Assessing Officer has to mention what was the tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is an escapement of income from assessment and that there has been a failure to fully and truly disclose material fact. After a period of four years even if the Assessing Officer has some tangible material to come to the conclusion

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of sub- section (1), in a case where an order under sub-section (4) has been made accepting the application.”. ITA Nos.163 to 166,170&172/PAT/2023 Nand Kumar Prasad & Biswanath Prasad; A.Ys. 2017-18 to 2020-21 011. Now, from perusal of the above Section, we note that so far as the conditions mentioned

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of sub- section (1), in a case where an order under sub-section (4) has been made accepting the application.”. ITA Nos.163 to 166,170&172/PAT/2023 Nand Kumar Prasad & Biswanath Prasad; A.Ys. 2017-18 to 2020-21 011. Now, from perusal of the above Section, we note that so far as the conditions mentioned

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of sub- section (1), in a case where an order under sub-section (4) has been made accepting the application.”. ITA Nos.163 to 166,170&172/PAT/2023 Nand Kumar Prasad & Biswanath Prasad; A.Ys. 2017-18 to 2020-21 011. Now, from perusal of the above Section, we note that so far as the conditions mentioned

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of sub- section (1), in a case where an order under sub-section (4) has been made accepting the application.”. ITA Nos.163 to 166,170&172/PAT/2023 Nand Kumar Prasad & Biswanath Prasad; A.Ys. 2017-18 to 2020-21 011. Now, from perusal of the above Section, we note that so far as the conditions mentioned

NAND KUMAR PRASAD SAH,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of sub- section (1), in a case where an order under sub-section (4) has been made accepting the application.”. ITA Nos.163 to 166,170&172/PAT/2023 Nand Kumar Prasad & Biswanath Prasad; A.Ys. 2017-18 to 2020-21 011. Now, from perusal of the above Section, we note that so far as the conditions mentioned

BISHWANATH PRASAD,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee (s) in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am

reassessment, referred to in clause (a) of sub- section (1), in a case where an order under sub-section (4) has been made accepting the application.”. ITA Nos.163 to 166,170&172/PAT/2023 Nand Kumar Prasad & Biswanath Prasad; A.Ys. 2017-18 to 2020-21 011. Now, from perusal of the above Section, we note that so far as the conditions mentioned

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

80,091/- (i.e. Rs.2,32,236/- towards PF and Rs.1,47,855/- towards ESI) belonging to the proprietorship is charged to the company. In view of this fact, the AO had disallowed the aforesaid amount of Rs.3.80.001/- for the year under consideration and added it to the total income of the assessee-company, 5.2. Further, during the appellate proceedings

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

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

80 taxmann.com 272 held that insertion of above proviso is prospective in nature and not retrospective. Therefore taking into account assessment years under appeal and all other facts as discussed above, the addition made u/s.68 of Rs.41,00,000/- is directed to be deleted. Accordingly, ground No.l is allowed. 5. Ground No. 2: This ground is directed against the charging

MURLIDHAR PRASAD,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA

In the result, ITA Nos.233-235/PAT/2024, ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.233, 234 & 235/Pat/2024 & Saroj Bala, Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Patna 101, Ramayan Apartment, New Dakbaglow Road, Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aaspb 3828 P & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.267/Pat/24 & Ita Nos.279, 282 & 283/Pat/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / A.Yrs : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2018-19) & Cross Objection No.02/Pat/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.295/Pat/2023) (Assessment Year : 2012-2013) Lovely Rani Constructions Pvt Ltd Vs Acit, Circle-1, Patna 301, Raj Krishna Apartment, East Boring Canal Road, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aabcl 8329 H & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.295/Pat/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / A.Yrs : 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-1, Patna Vs Lovely Rani Constructions Pvt Ltd 301, Raj Krishna Apartment, East Boring Canal Road, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aabcl 8329 H & आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.272, 273, 274, 275, 276 & 278/Pat/2023 (A.Yrs : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2018-19) Murlidhar Prasad, Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Patna 101, Ramayan Apartment, New Dakbaglow Road, Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aekpp 1361 D

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment order had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (Supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1,PATNA, PATNA vs. MURLIDHAR PRASAD, PATNA

In the result, ITA Nos.233-235/PAT/2024, ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.233, 234 & 235/Pat/2024 & Saroj Bala, Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Patna 101, Ramayan Apartment, New Dakbaglow Road, Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aaspb 3828 P & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.267/Pat/24 & Ita Nos.279, 282 & 283/Pat/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / A.Yrs : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2018-19) & Cross Objection No.02/Pat/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.295/Pat/2023) (Assessment Year : 2012-2013) Lovely Rani Constructions Pvt Ltd Vs Acit, Circle-1, Patna 301, Raj Krishna Apartment, East Boring Canal Road, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aabcl 8329 H & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.295/Pat/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / A.Yrs : 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-1, Patna Vs Lovely Rani Constructions Pvt Ltd 301, Raj Krishna Apartment, East Boring Canal Road, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aabcl 8329 H & आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.272, 273, 274, 275, 276 & 278/Pat/2023 (A.Yrs : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2018-19) Murlidhar Prasad, Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Patna 101, Ramayan Apartment, New Dakbaglow Road, Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aekpp 1361 D

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment order had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (Supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

LOVELY RANI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,PATNA BIHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, PATNA , PATNA

In the result, ITA Nos.233-235/PAT/2024, ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.233, 234 & 235/Pat/2024 & Saroj Bala, Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Patna 101, Ramayan Apartment, New Dakbaglow Road, Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aaspb 3828 P & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.267/Pat/24 & Ita Nos.279, 282 & 283/Pat/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / A.Yrs : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2018-19) & Cross Objection No.02/Pat/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.295/Pat/2023) (Assessment Year : 2012-2013) Lovely Rani Constructions Pvt Ltd Vs Acit, Circle-1, Patna 301, Raj Krishna Apartment, East Boring Canal Road, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aabcl 8329 H & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.295/Pat/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / A.Yrs : 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-1, Patna Vs Lovely Rani Constructions Pvt Ltd 301, Raj Krishna Apartment, East Boring Canal Road, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aabcl 8329 H & आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.272, 273, 274, 275, 276 & 278/Pat/2023 (A.Yrs : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2018-19) Murlidhar Prasad, Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Patna 101, Ramayan Apartment, New Dakbaglow Road, Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aekpp 1361 D

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment order had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (Supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with

LOVELY RANI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA

In the result, ITA Nos.233-235/PAT/2024, ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.233, 234 & 235/Pat/2024 & Saroj Bala, Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Patna 101, Ramayan Apartment, New Dakbaglow Road, Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aaspb 3828 P & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.267/Pat/24 & Ita Nos.279, 282 & 283/Pat/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / A.Yrs : 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2018-19) & Cross Objection No.02/Pat/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.295/Pat/2023) (Assessment Year : 2012-2013) Lovely Rani Constructions Pvt Ltd Vs Acit, Circle-1, Patna 301, Raj Krishna Apartment, East Boring Canal Road, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aabcl 8329 H & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.295/Pat/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / A.Yrs : 2012-13) Dcit, Central Circle-1, Patna Vs Lovely Rani Constructions Pvt Ltd 301, Raj Krishna Apartment, East Boring Canal Road, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aabcl 8329 H & आयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.272, 273, 274, 275, 276 & 278/Pat/2023 (A.Yrs : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2018-19) Murlidhar Prasad, Vs Acit, Central Circle-1, Patna 101, Ramayan Apartment, New Dakbaglow Road, Gandhi Maidan, Patna-800001 Pan No. :Aekpp 1361 D

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under sub-section (12) of section 144BA. The Tribunal while quashing the assessment order had relied upon its earlier decision in Navin Jain and Others (Supra) wherein a detailed discussion has been made with