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]

44,230/- per month and return of income was filed accordingly. However, according to the AO rent should have been charged as per the order of Rent Controller order from the date of the order. We note that in the case of other co-owner the addition made by the AO on account of notional rent was deleted

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]

44,230/- per month and return of income was filed accordingly. However, according to the AO rent should have been charged as per the order of Rent Controller order from the date of the order. We note that in the case of other co-owner the addition made by the AO on account of notional rent was deleted

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]

44,230/- per month and return of income was filed accordingly. However, according to the AO rent should have been charged as per the order of Rent Controller order from the date of the order. We note that in the case of other co-owner the addition made by the AO on account of notional rent was deleted

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]

44,230/- per month and return of income was filed accordingly. However, according to the AO rent should have been charged as per the order of Rent Controller order from the date of the order. We note that in the case of other co-owner the addition made by the AO on account of notional rent was deleted

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]

44,230/- per month and return of income was filed accordingly. However, according to the AO rent should have been charged as per the order of Rent Controller order from the date of the order. We note that in the case of other co-owner the addition made by the AO on account of notional rent was deleted

MAHANT PANDEY,ROHTAS vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceedings are bad in law in the absence of reasons recorded for issuing a reopening notice under section 148 of the Act being furnished to the assessee when sought for. It is axiomatic that power to reopen a completed assessment under the Act is an exceptional power and whenever revenue seeks to exercise such power, they must strictly comply

MAHANT PANDEY,ROHTAS vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment proceedings are bad in law in the absence of reasons recorded for issuing a reopening notice under section 148 of the Act being furnished to the assessee when sought for. It is axiomatic that power to reopen a completed assessment under the Act is an exceptional power and whenever revenue seeks to exercise such power, they must strictly comply

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 was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 02.08.2016 by making the following additions/disallowances: (a) Corporate Social Responsibility u/s 37(1) of the Act: ₹30,52,571/- (b) Interest on TDS: ₹46,190/- (c) Deduction on 'Other Income' claimed u/s 801A: ₹66,47,34,169/- The total income of the assessee was thus assessed

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 was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 02.08.2016 by making the following additions/disallowances: (a) Corporate Social Responsibility u/s 37(1) of the Act: ₹30,52,571/- (b) Interest on TDS: ₹46,190/- (c) Deduction on 'Other Income' claimed u/s 801A: ₹66,47,34,169/- The total income of the assessee was thus assessed

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 was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 02.08.2016 by making the following additions/disallowances: (a) Corporate Social Responsibility u/s 37(1) of the Act: ₹30,52,571/- (b) Interest on TDS: ₹46,190/- (c) Deduction on 'Other Income' claimed u/s 801A: ₹66,47,34,169/- The total income of the assessee was thus assessed

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 was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 02.08.2016 by making the following additions/disallowances: (a) Corporate Social Responsibility u/s 37(1) of the Act: ₹30,52,571/- (b) Interest on TDS: ₹46,190/- (c) Deduction on 'Other Income' claimed u/s 801A: ₹66,47,34,169/- The total income of the assessee was thus assessed

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 was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 02.08.2016 by making the following additions/disallowances: (a) Corporate Social Responsibility u/s 37(1) of the Act: ₹30,52,571/- (b) Interest on TDS: ₹46,190/- (c) Deduction on 'Other Income' claimed u/s 801A: ₹66,47,34,169/- The total income of the assessee was thus assessed

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 was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 02.08.2016 by making the following additions/disallowances: (a) Corporate Social Responsibility u/s 37(1) of the Act: ₹30,52,571/- (b) Interest on TDS: ₹46,190/- (c) Deduction on 'Other Income' claimed u/s 801A: ₹66,47,34,169/- The total income of the assessee was thus assessed

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

147. The impugned reassessment order as passed is fit to be declared annulled. 5. For that the learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the ground of the appellant that the assessment in this case has been completed without service of notice u/s 143(2). The Assessment Order as passed and confirmed by learned CIT(A) is ab-initio void

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA, C.R. BUILDING, PATNA vs. DEEPSHREE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., SAGUNA KHAGAUL DANAPUR PATNA

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

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that...." does not preclude assessment u/s 143(3)/144 by issue of notice u/s 143(2) where satisfaction of the assessing officer of the searched person making assessment u/s 153A is not relevant. (iii) That on the facts and in the circumstances

ANIL KUMAR,NALANDA vs. ITO, WARD- 2 (3), BIHARSHARIF

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 361/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anil Kumar National Faceless Assessment Centre M/S Raj Trading Company, Nfac, Delhi Harnaut, Nalanda, Patna-803110 Vs Bihar [Pan : Azopc268H] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

147 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 22nd August, 2021, framed by Income Tax officer, NFAC. 2. The registry has informed that the appeal is time barred by 46 days. The assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay. Perusal of the same indicates that the assessee did not came to know

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

44 of the paper book, which reads as under:- 2 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Dolly Ghosh 4. A notice for reopening was issued on 29.03.1919 and the copy of such notice issued under section 148 is available on page no. 38 of the paper book. In response to 3 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Dolly Ghosh the notice, the assessee filed

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

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

44 and inventory of stock found is available on page 45 (Annexure A/3). On the strength of these details, he pointed out that the evidence regarding bogus share 9 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & C.O. No. 04/PAT/2022 (in ITA No. 110/PAT/2019) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Sonamoti Agrotech Pvt. Limited application money raised by the assessee was nowhere available in this material

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