BIHAR STATE EDUCATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

23. The University of this Category does not mean or making profit. The University may have surplus of income over the expenditure. The hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Aditanar Educational Institution V. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax’ - 1997 (2) TMI 3 had held that one should bear in mind the distinction between the corpus, the objects

ITO, WARD-1(EXEMPTION), PATNA vs. AISHWARYA FOUNDATION, PATNA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 103/Pat/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Aishwarya Foundation, Patna Exemption Vs 46, Patliputra Colony Near Sahyog Hospital Patliputra Colony Patna - 800013 [Pan: Aacta0834A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Patna, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 10/09/2020, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue Raised By The Department Before Us In The Instant Lis Relates To The Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.2,61,72,000/- By The Ld. Cit(A) Made By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 30/12/2016 On Account Of Alleged Anonymous Donations Made U/S 115Bbc Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Trust Is A Charitable Organization Registered U/S 12Aa Of Act. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 24/06/2015 Declaring Total Income At ‘Nil’. Case Of Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass Followed By Issuance Of Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted From The Income & Expenditure Account That The Assessee Had Shown Income At Rs.2,61,72,000/- Which Was Received As Donation & Incurred Expenses To The Tune Of Rs.2,22,47,910/- Which Resulted In Income Over Expenditure At

23 C) of section 10 or any trust or institution referred to in section 11, includes any income by way of any anonymous donation, the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- (i) the amount of income-tax calculated at the rate of thirty per cent on the aggregate of anonymous donations received in excess

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

68 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4]” Page 12 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 v) PCIT VS Kishore Kumar Mohapatra 298 Taxman 648 (SC)[05-04-2024) “SLP dismissed against order of High

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

68 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4]” Page 12 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 v) PCIT VS Kishore Kumar Mohapatra 298 Taxman 648 (SC)[05-04-2024) “SLP dismissed against order of High

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

68 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4]” Page 12 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 v) PCIT VS Kishore Kumar Mohapatra 298 Taxman 648 (SC)[05-04-2024) “SLP dismissed against order of High

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

68 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4]” Page 12 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 v) PCIT VS Kishore Kumar Mohapatra 298 Taxman 648 (SC)[05-04-2024) “SLP dismissed against order of High

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

68 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4]” Page 12 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 v) PCIT VS Kishore Kumar Mohapatra 298 Taxman 648 (SC)[05-04-2024) “SLP dismissed against order of High

ACIT vs. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WELFARE HUMAN RESOURCES,

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed while the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

10(23)(C)(vi) from the CCIT or DGIT as the case may be is a necessary condition for getting exemption under this section. Further from the perusal of the balance sheet it is seen that the assessee is engaged in other various 9 I.T.A. No. 119/PAT/2011 & C.O. No.1/PAT/2012 International School of Social Welfare & Human Resources

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

RAJBANSH RAM,BHABUA vs. ITO WARD- 3(5), SASARAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68" 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has very strangely has stated as under Addition upheld: Rs.107632265 whereas the Assessing Officer has assessed the assessee at Rs.32,28,967/- being 3% NP of alleged turnover determined at Rs.10,76,32,265/- 11. That on the facts and circumstances

PRERNA AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

10,396/- under Section 68 of the Act, after giving the benefit of opening cash balance of Rs. 23

I.T.O. vs. M/S KUMAR CONSTRUCLTION,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

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

23-09-2011. The extract of the letter is being reproduced below: “…..please explain whether tax has been deducted on it. If yes, furnish your Form 26Q and challan showing the payment of tax deducted. If not, please explain, why it should not be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). ” 14. In response, the assessee in its reply, submitted

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]

23 of the Act should not be calculated by applying same rate in the whole financial year. The assessee replied vide letter dated 21.03.2016 submitting that the above property was let out at monthly rent of Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum of which the assessee’s share is ½ at prevalent rate for a period from December, 2008 to November

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]

23 of the Act should not be calculated by applying same rate in the whole financial year. The assessee replied vide letter dated 21.03.2016 submitting that the above property was let out at monthly rent of Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum of which the assessee’s share is ½ at prevalent rate for a period from December, 2008 to November

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]

23 of the Act should not be calculated by applying same rate in the whole financial year. The assessee replied vide letter dated 21.03.2016 submitting that the above property was let out at monthly rent of Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum of which the assessee’s share is ½ at prevalent rate for a period from December, 2008 to November

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]

23 of the Act should not be calculated by applying same rate in the whole financial year. The assessee replied vide letter dated 21.03.2016 submitting that the above property was let out at monthly rent of Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum of which the assessee’s share is ½ at prevalent rate for a period from December, 2008 to November

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]

23 of the Act should not be calculated by applying same rate in the whole financial year. The assessee replied vide letter dated 21.03.2016 submitting that the above property was let out at monthly rent of Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum of which the assessee’s share is ½ at prevalent rate for a period from December, 2008 to November

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

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

23, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna dated 02.01.2019 passed for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Revenue has taken four grounds of appeal, but its grievance revolves around a single issue, namely

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S CONTESSA COMMERCIAL CO. PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

68 on account of unexplained credit. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 04.11.2017 declaring total income ‘NIL’ and current year loss of Rs.60,00,834/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued on 14.08.2018 fixing