ALKEM LABORATORIES LTD,PATNA vs. PR. CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

147 concluded vide re- assessment order u/s 143(3)/147 dated 31.12.2018 and thus the notice issued dated 15.01.2021 is barred by limitation. (2) For that in absence of any allegation in the notice u/s 263 dated 15.01.2021 to the effect that re-assessment order u/s 143(30/147 dated 31.12.2018 is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest

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

reassessment proceeding and passing order u/s 147 of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was already completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order of assessment dated 31/03/2016 and that an assessment concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act cannot be reopened u/s 148 of the Act after the expiry

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

reassessment proceeding and passing order u/s 147 of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was already completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order of assessment dated 31/03/2016 and that an assessment concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act cannot be reopened u/s 148 of the Act after the expiry

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

reassessment proceeding and passing order u/s 147 of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was already completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order of assessment dated 31/03/2016 and that an assessment concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act cannot be reopened u/s 148 of the Act after the expiry

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

reassessment proceeding and passing order u/s 147 of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was already completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order of assessment dated 31/03/2016 and that an assessment concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act cannot be reopened u/s 148 of the Act after the expiry

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, COR-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

reassessment proceeding and passing order u/s 147 of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was already completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order of assessment dated 31/03/2016 and that an assessment concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act cannot be reopened u/s 148 of the Act after the expiry

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

reassessment proceeding and passing order u/s 147 of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14 was already completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order of assessment dated 31/03/2016 and that an assessment concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act cannot be reopened u/s 148 of the Act after the expiry

ALKEM LABORATORIES LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub--section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment as referred to in sub--section (1), as the case may be.] (4) Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section

VEENA DEVI,MUZAFFARPUR vs. PR.CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 41/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Veena Devi Pr. Cit, Patna-1 Vs Krishnapuri, Nh 28 Bhagwanpur Chowk Muzaffarpur - 842001 [Pan: Aoyps8291P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Maskara, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/06/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna-1, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 23/03/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of Eighteen (18) Days In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Ld Pcit, Patna Is Wrong, Illegal, Arbitrary & Against The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case.

Section 263 of the IT Act revising the order passed U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 by the Ld ACIT, Cir -2 (1), Muzaffarpur on 26.12.2018 is wrong, illegal and against the facts and circumstances of the case and should be quashed. 3. For that the Ld PCIT should have considered the fact that the Assessing Officer has thoroughly examined

SONAM RAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), PATNA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.02/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Vibhuti Bhushan Sinha………………………….....…...……………....Appellant C-601, Shivam Apartment, Virmeshwar Nagar, Dwarka, Gujrat-361335. [Pan: Aigps7118D] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent I.T.A. No.03/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Sonam Raj…………..………………………….....…...……………....Appellant W/O Shri Deepak Verma, 2Nd Floor, House No.101, Pocket-52, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi – 110019. [Pan: Dfsps6397E] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sushil Kr. Mishra, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By Two Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.04.2021 & 01.03.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To

263 days. A separate application has been filed for condonation of delay, wherein, it has been pleaded that the appellant could not file the appeal in time due to the Covid Pandemic, therefore, considering the application, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of 3. appeal: “1

VIBHUTI BHUSHAN SINHA,DWARKA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), PATNA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.02/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Vibhuti Bhushan Sinha………………………….....…...……………....Appellant C-601, Shivam Apartment, Virmeshwar Nagar, Dwarka, Gujrat-361335. [Pan: Aigps7118D] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent I.T.A. No.03/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Sonam Raj…………..………………………….....…...……………....Appellant W/O Shri Deepak Verma, 2Nd Floor, House No.101, Pocket-52, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi – 110019. [Pan: Dfsps6397E] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sushil Kr. Mishra, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By Two Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.04.2021 & 01.03.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To

263 days. A separate application has been filed for condonation of delay, wherein, it has been pleaded that the appellant could not file the appeal in time due to the Covid Pandemic, therefore, considering the application, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of 3. appeal: “1

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

u/s 148, filed return of income in compliance to this notice and also corresponded with the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it appears that many of the objections raised against re- assessment proceedings are superfluous. Ongoing through the record, it is found that the appellant has filed written submission, the content of 5 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Dolly Ghosh which is reproduced

DEEPAK SHRAWAN BUDHIA,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF I.T., PATNA-1, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of disallowance of expenditure on account of non-deduction of TDS on freight as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the 1. T. Act, 1961 was passed without considering all provisions of Sec 147 and without considering its exemption provisions. 5. For that, the order was passed without considering that