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

17. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee for the assessee in this respect has explained that the assessee had purchased the shares of GCM Securities on 03.04.2013 through IPO (initial public offering). The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the IPO was opened on 18.03.2013 and the assessee had purchased 6000 shares of GCM. The IPO was closed

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

17. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee for the assessee in this respect has explained that the assessee had purchased the shares of GCM Securities on 03.04.2013 through IPO (initial public offering). The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the IPO was opened on 18.03.2013 and the assessee had purchased 6000 shares of GCM. The IPO was closed

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

17. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee for the assessee in this respect has explained that the assessee had purchased the shares of GCM Securities on 03.04.2013 through IPO (initial public offering). The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the IPO was opened on 18.03.2013 and the assessee had purchased 6000 shares of GCM. The IPO was closed

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

17. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee for the assessee in this respect has explained that the assessee had purchased the shares of GCM Securities on 03.04.2013 through IPO (initial public offering). The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the IPO was opened on 18.03.2013 and the assessee had purchased 6000 shares of GCM. The IPO was closed

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

17. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee for the assessee in this respect has explained that the assessee had purchased the shares of GCM Securities on 03.04.2013 through IPO (initial public offering). The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the IPO was opened on 18.03.2013 and the assessee had purchased 6000 shares of GCM. The IPO was closed

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

M/S MARUTI NANDAN FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 2(1), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

section 68 of the Act. She further stated that even in the affidavits/confirmations submitted by nine lenders out of the total eighteen lenders, no details in respect of their PAN, ITR, Balance Sheet were furnished so as to enable the Ld. AO to carry out appropriate verification and examination of the loan transactions. She further submitted that

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

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

68 was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 wherein the onus of proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditor to the satisfaction of the AO 13 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & C.O. No. 04/PAT/2022 (in ITA No. 110/PAT/2019) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Sonamoti Agrotech Pvt. Limited has entirely shifted to the assessee. In this regard the relevant proviso

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

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

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

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

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

AJAY KUMAR KESHAN,BETTIAH vs. DC/AC, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 3/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Ajay Kumar Keshan,.……………………………Appellant M/S. Abhijeet Service Station, Sowa Babu Chowk, Lal Bazar Bettiah, West Champaran-845438, Bihar [Pan:Abapk5421A] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner /Assistant Commissioner,......................Respondent Circle-1, Muzaffarpur-842002, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Vineet Jalan, Ca & Shri Rajaram Choudhury, Ca, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 30, 2024 O R D E R

section 68 cannot be invoked. He pleaded to set aside the orders passed by the lower authorities. 3 Ajay Kumar Keshan 6. On the other hand, ld. D.R. has submitted that as per the cash book, the assessee is not having sufficient cash on hand to make the deposits, therefore, the assessee was not proved the source for cash

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

68 of the Act. In this regard, enquiry was carried out on ITBA, e-filling portal and ITD database and on perusal of 12 Shankar Construction the ITR as filed by the assessee, it was observed that the assessee has not Page 2 of 4 ABOFS0800R SHANKAR CONSTRUCTION Α.Υ. 2016-17 ITBA/AST/F/147/(SCN)2021- 22/1041820954(1) declared such loan

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.

68 read with section 115BBE of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the reassessment proceeding was initiated on the basis of cash deposits made in bank. 12. For that the Id. assessing officer has erred in not disclosing the details of the bank account/s in the impugned assessment order, on the basis of which the additions have been made

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

17,53,430/-. The facts stated above in A.Y. 2016-17 are also common. The assessee has filed its return of income in 2017-18 also but on 21.12.2019. It has declared total income of Rs.12,43,02,386/-. Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 & C.O. Nos. 1 & 2/PAT/2022 (in ITA 62 & 63/PAT/2021) Assessment years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 Broadson

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

17,53,430/-. The facts stated above in A.Y. 2016-17 are also common. The assessee has filed its return of income in 2017-18 also but on 21.12.2019. It has declared total income of Rs.12,43,02,386/-. Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 & C.O. Nos. 1 & 2/PAT/2022 (in ITA 62 & 63/PAT/2021) Assessment years: 2016-2017 & 2017-2018 Broadson