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

1. For that the grounds of appeal hereto are without prejudice to each other. 2. For that the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the Assessment Order dated 16.12.2019 as passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of authorities below is bad in law and on facts. Notice u/s

ARUN CONSTRUCTION,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAGALPUR

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

147 I 148 is arbitrary unjustified, void ab-initio and bad in law. 3. For that the learned CIT(A) has also failed to adjudicate the following grounds:- (i) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no justification for addition of a sum of Rs. 9,43,7351- being hire charges separately. The case

ARUN CONSTRUCTION,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAGALPUR

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

147 I 148 is arbitrary unjustified, void ab-initio and bad in law. 3. For that the learned CIT(A) has also failed to adjudicate the following grounds:- (i) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no justification for addition of a sum of Rs. 9,43,7351- being hire charges separately. The case

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

reassessment proceeding has been initiated for making roving and fishing enquiry. The order of assessment as sustained u/s 147 rws 144 rws 144B is arbitrary, unjustified, without jurisdiction, void ab-initio, bad in law, vitiated in law and invalid. The order as passed u/s 147 is fit to be quashed / cancel / annulled. 1.2 For that the order of the assessment

SHARDINDU PRASAD SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. b. The other grounds of appeal here under are urged without prejudice to one another: 1. On the facts & circumstances of the case, the order of the learned Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction and is void ab-initio as he has erred in initiating proceedings u/s 147 148 without existence

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

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

u/s,153A based on the report from the Investigation wing of the department, but at the same time has to be backed by independent enquiry by the AO with positive evidence to corroborate the findings contained in the investigation report. However the AO failed to gather an iota of additional evidence or could controvert the evidence placed by the appellant

DOLLY GHOSH,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

1) along with questionnaire was issued to the assessee on 26/ 11/2019 compliance on 03 12/2019. The assessee filed return of income u/s 148 on 27/12/2019, disclosing total income of Rs.17,07,150/-. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee on 27/12/2019 for compliance on 30/12/2019. The reason of reopening of assessment u/s 147

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

234B amounting to Rs.47,71,305/- and Rs.52,05,060/- respectively. 8. For that the appellant may not be treated as assessee in default in respect of the disputed demand including interest amounting to Rs.1,86,61,540/-. 9. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission along with evidences and documents on or before

LALMUNI DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1. Section 48. Capital gain was wrongly calculated. My sale consideration was Rs. 6060816 while in assessment order it was wrongly calculated as Rs. 6402144. 2. Section 55. I have purchased land in year 1977 for Rs. 9500. However my cost of acquisition should be taken as lower of stamp duty value and ITA No.: 18/PAT/2025 Assessment Year

RAJEEV RANJAN,NALANDA vs. I.T.O., WARD 2(3), BIHARSHARIF

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 123/Pat./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Rajeev Ranjan, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O Sita Ram Singh, Garhpar, Ward-2(3), Bihar Sharif, Nalanda-803101 Bihar Sharif (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agcpr5450R Assessee By : Sh. A. K. Rastogi & Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Advs. Revenue By : Sh. Abhay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 16 .03.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.06.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Patna.

234B & 234D amounting to Rs.31,524/- and Rs.19,832/- are wrong, illegal and unjustified on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant’s case. 9. For that the whole order is bad in fact and law of the case and is fit to be annulled. 10. For that other grounds, if any, shall be urged at the time

NITESH DUTT JHA,MADHUBANI vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (5), MADHUBANI

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

u/s 144 was not valid in view of the fact and that no show cause notice as required by 2 proviso to section 144(1) was issued and served. (2) The learned CIT(A) as well as Learned Assessing Office, despite frequent non-compliance from the end of appellant, have never got the notice served physically upon the appellant either