NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

section 263 read with Clause (a) of Explanation-21 thereunder. I, therefore, under the powers conferred u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereby set aside the order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 153A/143(3) for AY 2015-16 with direction to pass fresh order after conducting proper enquiries, including third party enquiries and investigations into the claim

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

section 263 read with Clause (a) of Explanation-21 thereunder. I, therefore, under the powers conferred u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereby set aside the order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 153A/143(3) for AY 2015-16 with direction to pass fresh order after conducting proper enquiries, including third party enquiries and investigations into the claim

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

section 263 read with Clause (a) of Explanation-21 thereunder. I, therefore, under the powers conferred u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereby set aside the order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 153A/143(3) for AY 2015-16 with direction to pass fresh order after conducting proper enquiries, including third party enquiries and investigations into the claim

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

section 263 read with Clause (a) of Explanation-21 thereunder. I, therefore, under the powers conferred u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereby set aside the order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 153A/143(3) for AY 2015-16 with direction to pass fresh order after conducting proper enquiries, including third party enquiries and investigations into the claim

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

section 263 read with Clause (a) of Explanation-21 thereunder. I, therefore, under the powers conferred u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereby set aside the order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 153A/143(3) for AY 2015-16 with direction to pass fresh order after conducting proper enquiries, including third party enquiries and investigations into the claim

MITHILESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 to 69D read with Section 115BBE, by colouring the "deemed incomes" as business income. More so, in cases of unaccounted cash and undisclosed investment/expenditure in purchases, and excess stock assessable under section 69A/69B/69C of the Act. 3.2.1. At the outset, all the decisions quoted and relied upon by the assessee, with regard to non-applicability of Section 115BBE, relate

M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

revised return neither any claim was disallowed nor any addition was made. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) quashed the reassessment proceedings holding that the assessee had disclosed all the facts and no new fact was available to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it was mere change of opinion on the part of the Assessing Officer and as such, the reassessment proceedings

ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRABHAT,ARRAH vs. PCIT-1, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

263 of the Act by the Id. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna-1, Patna. Accordingly the appellant filed the present appeal. 7. That the appellant submits that the delay in filing the present appeal is not attributable to the appellant since the appellant was trying to exhaust his legal remedies. 8. That the appellant states that the delay

BALKRISHNA BHALOTIA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMUI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68,330/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee on 23.09.2019. It is pertinent to observe that a survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 14.09.2017. 2 Assessment Year

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), PATNA vs. MUNNI RAI, PATNA

Bench: Itat.

revised ground of appeal as under: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs. 3,44,45,828/- on account of bogus creditors, which was not even added in the order U/s 143(3)/254. The addition was done in earlier order U/s 143(3)/263 dated 06.03.2013. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue