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

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

3. For that the learned JCIT, Range-6, Patna has not applied his judicial mind before according sanction u/s 151. The approval has been granted for reopening of the assessment in a mechanical manner and without due application of judicial mind. The reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO on basis of mechanical approval is arbitrary, unjustified

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

Section 234B. Since there was long term 5 capital loss so interest u/s 234B should not be levied” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed any return of income for the year under consideration despite entering into and registering a Land Development Agreement with House-Con Consultant & Developer during

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

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

234B, 234C). Issue demand notice and penalty proceedings are initiated u/s. 271D & u/s. 27IE”. 5. Dissatisfied with this reopening, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal by observing that since 4 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Dolly Ghosh no addition has been made to the total income

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

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

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

234B and 234C of the Act. As this ground is consequential in nature, the same do not require separate adjudication. 6. Ground No. 3 to 6: These grounds are general in nature and hence not adjudicated. 7 In the result the appeal for A.Y.2008-09 is allowed”. 14 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & C.O. No. 04/PAT/2022 (in ITA No. 110/PAT/2019) Assessment Year

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

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

reassessment invalid. (7) Similarly, the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Thayaballi Mullajeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC) held that improper service of notice invalidates the entire proceedings. In Dr. K.C. Verma v. UOI (2017) 395 ITR 301 (All.), the Allahabad High Court reiterated that service of notice of scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) is mandatory, and without valid