AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

reassessment order passed u/s. 147 of the Act is hereby quashed. ITA No. 180/Pat/2023 (AY 2013-14): 13. Both the Ld. Representatives of the parties have submitted that all the facts and issues involved in this appeal are identical to the above discussed assessee’s appeal ITA No. 179/Pat/2023 for AY 2011-12. The identical legal grounds have been taken

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

reassessment order passed u/s. 147 of the Act is hereby quashed. ITA No. 180/Pat/2023 (AY 2013-14): 13. Both the Ld. Representatives of the parties have submitted that all the facts and issues involved in this appeal are identical to the above discussed assessee’s appeal ITA No. 179/Pat/2023 for AY 2011-12. The identical legal grounds have been taken

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

reassessment order passed u/s. 147 of the Act is hereby quashed. ITA No. 180/Pat/2023 (AY 2013-14): 13. Both the Ld. Representatives of the parties have submitted that all the facts and issues involved in this appeal are identical to the above discussed assessee’s appeal ITA No. 179/Pat/2023 for AY 2011-12. The identical legal grounds have been taken

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

reassessment order passed u/s. 147 of the Act is hereby quashed. ITA No. 180/Pat/2023 (AY 2013-14): 13. Both the Ld. Representatives of the parties have submitted that all the facts and issues involved in this appeal are identical to the above discussed assessee’s appeal ITA No. 179/Pat/2023 for AY 2011-12. The identical legal grounds have been taken

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

reassessment order passed u/s. 147 of the Act is hereby quashed. ITA No. 180/Pat/2023 (AY 2013-14): 13. Both the Ld. Representatives of the parties have submitted that all the facts and issues involved in this appeal are identical to the above discussed assessee’s appeal ITA No. 179/Pat/2023 for AY 2011-12. The identical legal grounds have been taken

MADHU DEVI,NAWADA vs. ITO, WARD 2 (3), BIHARSHARIF, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

147 that the assessee has escaped income as the assessee has already disclosed the purchase value of land in the audited balance with source of purchase. 2. For that the assessing officer as well as ld. CIT Appeal has failed to construe that the assessee has disclosed the investment in land in the balance sheet in regular course and said

PATNA IRON PVT. LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of\nthe Revenue is dismissed

reassessment under sections 148 &\n147/148. In defense of his argument, the Id. AR relied on the\ndecision of the coordinate bench in case of DCIT vs Shivali Mahajan\nin ITA No. 5585/DEL/2015 vide order dated 19.03.2019.\n\n6.\nThe Id. DR on the other hand, relied heavily on the order of Id. AO\nand

MANOJ KUMAR DAS,BEGUSARAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: 19/07/2025. The Appeal Is Delayed By Around 37 Days. 4. That The Assessee States That The Reason For Delay Is That The Assessee Is Suffering From Hiv Aids & Is Constantly Under Treatment. Copy Of Medical Treatment Is Enclosed.

unexplained investment in purchase of property credited from undisclosed sources u/s 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act and assessed the same under the Act. 10. For that the Id. assessing officer has grossly erred in holding the entire cash deposits as undisclosed income, notwithstanding the fact that it was apparent from the bank statement itself that purchases have

SHANKAR CONSTRUCTION,PANCHGACHIA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 565/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Shankar Construction,………………..…….……Appellant Panchgachia, Panchgachia-852124, Bihar [Pan:Abofs0800R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….……..……Respondent Ward-3(1), Purnea, Bihar Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashok Kumar, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 18, 2024 O R D E R

147 of the Act. Merely because the revenue classifies a fact already on record as “information” may vest it with the power to issue a notice of re assessment u/s 148A(b) but would certainly not vest it with the power to issue a re-assessment notice u/s 148 post an order u/s 148A(d). As per clause

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

MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION INDIA LIMITED,PATNA BIHAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2 PATNA, PATNA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

unexplained expenditure incurred by the assessee for construction of three real estate properties, i.e. Patna One Mall, Boring Road Project and Phulwarisharif Patna Project. The assessee has sold the properties in these assessment years. The details of those properties have been tabulated in the assessment orders. The ld. Assessing Officer found that sale considerations disclosed by the assessee are lower

MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION INDIA LIMITED,PATNA, BIHAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2 PATNA, PATNA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

unexplained expenditure incurred by the assessee for construction of three real estate properties, i.e. Patna One Mall, Boring Road Project and Phulwarisharif Patna Project. The assessee has sold the properties in these assessment years. The details of those properties have been tabulated in the assessment orders. The ld. Assessing Officer found that sale considerations disclosed by the assessee are lower

MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION INDIA LIMITED,PATNA BIHAR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2 PATNA, PATNA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

unexplained expenditure incurred by the assessee for construction of three real estate properties, i.e. Patna One Mall, Boring Road Project and Phulwarisharif Patna Project. The assessee has sold the properties in these assessment years. The details of those properties have been tabulated in the assessment orders. The ld. Assessing Officer found that sale considerations disclosed by the assessee are lower

MERIDIAN CONSTRUCTION INDIA LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, PATNA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

unexplained expenditure incurred by the assessee for construction of three real estate properties, i.e. Patna One Mall, Boring Road Project and Phulwarisharif Patna Project. The assessee has sold the properties in these assessment years. The details of those properties have been tabulated in the assessment orders. The ld. Assessing Officer found that sale considerations disclosed by the assessee are lower