PUNRASAR JUTE PARK LIMITED,PURNEA vs. CIT, PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 of the Act for alleged unexplained cash credit. 6. The assessee challenged the reopening being bad in law and illegal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) stating that all the information relating to the alleged cash credits have been examined by the ld. Assessing Officer in the proceeding under section 143

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]

68,566/- to the income of the assessee in assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2016 on the basis that according to rent controller order , the revised rent is effective from 27.07.2012. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of AO. 5. After hearing

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]

68,566/- to the income of the assessee in assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2016 on the basis that according to rent controller order , the revised rent is effective from 27.07.2012. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of AO. 5. After hearing

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]

68,566/- to the income of the assessee in assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2016 on the basis that according to rent controller order , the revised rent is effective from 27.07.2012. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of AO. 5. After hearing

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]

68,566/- to the income of the assessee in assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2016 on the basis that according to rent controller order , the revised rent is effective from 27.07.2012. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of AO. 5. After hearing

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]

68,566/- to the income of the assessee in assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2016 on the basis that according to rent controller order , the revised rent is effective from 27.07.2012. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of AO. 5. After hearing

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

143(2) the Act. The reasons recorded on 18.01.2007 for the 1st reopening and those recorded on 16.04.2009 for the 2 nd reopening are as under: i. Reasons to believe dated 18.01.2007: 18.01.2007 The assessee International School of Social Welfare and Human Resources Society filed its return of Income on 31.10.2005 showing no income. From the perusal of the return

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

68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should be presumed that the assessment u/s 143(3) had been made after proper application of mind and also holding that the assessee has no control over the way, the assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which

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

68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should be presumed that the assessment u/s 143(3) had been made after proper application of mind and also holding that the assessee has no control over the way, the assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which

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

68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should be presumed that the assessment u/s 143(3) had been made after proper application of mind and also holding that the assessee has no control over the way, the assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which

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

68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should be presumed that the assessment u/s 143(3) had been made after proper application of mind and also holding that the assessee has no control over the way, the assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which

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

68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should be presumed that the assessment u/s 143(3) had been made after proper application of mind and also holding that the assessee has no control over the way, the assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which

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

68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should be presumed that the assessment u/s 143(3) had been made after proper application of mind and also holding that the assessee has no control over the way, the assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which

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

68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should be presumed that the assessment u/s 143(3) had been made after proper application of mind and also holding that the assessee has no control over the way, the assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which

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

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

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

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

68 of the Income Tax Act. It is pertinent to note that the ld. 1st Appellate Authority has decided the appeals for A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2013-14 by the common impugned order. 2 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & C.O. No. 04/PAT/2022 (in ITA No. 110/PAT/2019) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Sonamoti Agrotech Pvt. Limited 3. On receipt of notice

SHREEPUNJ CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,BEGUSARAI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), BEGUSARAI

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

68 of the Act in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 19.12.2017. 3. On appeal

RAJ CONSTRUCTION,KATIHAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHAGALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raj Construction Circle – 1(1), C/O Mahadev Ghosh, Bhagalpur, Advocate Vs. Bf-199, Salt Lake City, R.N. Plaza, R.B.S.S Kolkata-700064 Sahay Road, Bhagalpur, Bihar- 812001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajfr6306F Assessee By : Shri Mahadev Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2024

68 of the Act. We note that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in construction/ contract business. Income of ₹50,07,820/- declared in the return for A.Y. 2015-16 furnished on 27th March, 2016. After the case being selected for limited scrutiny through Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS) followed by validly serving notices under Section 143