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.

147 and not by the first proviso. 7. For the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not holding the initiation of proceeding u/s 147/148 to be barred by limitation. 8. For that the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that there has been proper service of notice u/s 148(1) and therefore reassessment proceeding has been validly initiated

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]

income at Rs. 8,18,08,606/- by making addition on account of long term capital gain of Rs. 7,31,02,196/- vide order dated 10.12.2019. 15. In the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on legal issue as well as on merit. The Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from

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]

income at Rs. 8,18,08,606/- by making addition on account of long term capital gain of Rs. 7,31,02,196/- vide order dated 10.12.2019. 15. In the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on legal issue as well as on merit. The Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from

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]

income at Rs. 8,18,08,606/- by making addition on account of long term capital gain of Rs. 7,31,02,196/- vide order dated 10.12.2019. 15. In the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on legal issue as well as on merit. The Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from

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]

income at Rs. 8,18,08,606/- by making addition on account of long term capital gain of Rs. 7,31,02,196/- vide order dated 10.12.2019. 15. In the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on legal issue as well as on merit. The Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from

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]

income at Rs. 8,18,08,606/- by making addition on account of long term capital gain of Rs. 7,31,02,196/- vide order dated 10.12.2019. 15. In the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on legal issue as well as on merit. The Ld. CIT(A) called for a remand report from

SAROJ BALA,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 &

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. The letter simply grants an approval. In other words, even the bare minimum requirement of the approving authority having to indicate what the thought process involved was is missing in the aforementioned approval order. While elaborate reasons This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.233, 234 & 235/Pat/2024 &

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. THE LETTER SIMPLY GRANTS AN APPROVAL. IN OTHER WORDS, EVEN THE BARE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF THE APPROVING AUTHORITY HAVING TO INDICATE WHAT THE THOUGHT PROCESS INVOLVED WAS IS MISSING IN THE AFOREMENTIONED APPROVAL ORDER. WHILE ELABORATE REASONS THIS IS A DIGITALLY SIGNED ORDER. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE ORDER CAN BE RE-VERIFIED FROM DELHI HIGH

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 &

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. The letter simply grants an approval. In other words, even the bare minimum requirement of the approving authority having to indicate what the thought process involved was is missing in the aforementioned approval order. While elaborate reasons This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 PATNA, PATNA vs. LOVELY RANI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD , 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 &

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax. The letter simply grants an approval. In other words, even the bare minimum requirement of the approving authority having to indicate what the thought process involved was is missing in the aforementioned approval order. While elaborate reasons This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High

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

additional income of ₹5,15,000/-. The learned Assessing Officer carried out the assessment proceeding but finally accepted the returned income. In nutshell, there is no difference between the assessed income and the returned income shown in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act. 08. Now, the learned Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings for under reporting income

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

additional income of ₹5,15,000/-. The learned Assessing Officer carried out the assessment proceeding but finally accepted the returned income. In nutshell, there is no difference between the assessed income and the returned income shown in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act. 08. Now, the learned Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings for under reporting income

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

additional income of ₹5,15,000/-. The learned Assessing Officer carried out the assessment proceeding but finally accepted the returned income. In nutshell, there is no difference between the assessed income and the returned income shown in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act. 08. Now, the learned Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings for under reporting income

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

additional income of ₹5,15,000/-. The learned Assessing Officer carried out the assessment proceeding but finally accepted the returned income. In nutshell, there is no difference between the assessed income and the returned income shown in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act. 08. Now, the learned Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings for under reporting income

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

additional income of ₹5,15,000/-. The learned Assessing Officer carried out the assessment proceeding but finally accepted the returned income. In nutshell, there is no difference between the assessed income and the returned income shown in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act. 08. Now, the learned Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings for under reporting income

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

additional income of ₹5,15,000/-. The learned Assessing Officer carried out the assessment proceeding but finally accepted the returned income. In nutshell, there is no difference between the assessed income and the returned income shown in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act. 08. Now, the learned Assessing Officer has initiated the penalty proceedings for under reporting income

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

u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 27/12/2017. Notice u/s.148 of the Act was thereafter issued by the A.O on 30/03/2021. Accordingly, as the case of the assessee was reopened beyond a period of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, therefore, as per the "first proviso" to section 147 of the Act the case could have

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

income-tax Act, 1961 which is mandatory requirement for assuming jurisdiction u/s 148. Thus, validity 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

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