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

17. Since we have upheld the order of the CIT(A) and therefore, the C.O. being in support of the order of the Id.CIT(A) is deemed to have been allowed. 18. In the result, revenue's appeal is dismissed and C.O. of the assessee is allowed. 19. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.3.2010. 5. Thus, neither

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

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

17. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case the setting aside of order passed by the Ld. AO with a direction to pass a fresh order is wholly arbitrary, unwarranted, wrong and illegal at any rate are excessive. 18. For that the observations made by the Pr. CIT in the order of revision under the section

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

17. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case the setting aside of order passed by the Ld. AO with a direction to pass a fresh order is wholly arbitrary, unwarranted, wrong and illegal at any rate are excessive. 18. For that the observations made by the Pr. CIT in the order of revision under the section

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

17. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case the setting aside of order passed by the Ld. AO with a direction to pass a fresh order is wholly arbitrary, unwarranted, wrong and illegal at any rate are excessive. 18. For that the observations made by the Pr. CIT in the order of revision under the section

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

17. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case the setting aside of order passed by the Ld. AO with a direction to pass a fresh order is wholly arbitrary, unwarranted, wrong and illegal at any rate are excessive. 18. For that the observations made by the Pr. CIT in the order of revision under the section

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

17. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case the setting aside of order passed by the Ld. AO with a direction to pass a fresh order is wholly arbitrary, unwarranted, wrong and illegal at any rate are excessive. 18. For that the observations made by the Pr. CIT in the order of revision under the section

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

17. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case the setting aside of order passed by the Ld. AO with a direction to pass a fresh order is wholly arbitrary, unwarranted, wrong and illegal at any rate are excessive. 18. For that the observations made by the Pr. CIT in the order of revision under the section

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

17. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case the setting aside of order passed by the Ld. AO with a direction to pass a fresh order is wholly arbitrary, unwarranted, wrong and illegal at any rate are excessive. 18. For that the observations made by the Pr. CIT in the order of revision under the section

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

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

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

17-06-2008 SBI-347 735724 4,70,000/- Satyendra Sharma 26-03-2009 Dena-285 975985 96,000/- Subhash Kumar 31-05-2008 PNB-9926 821336 1,50,000/- Subhash Kumar 08-09-2008 PNB-9926 797767 5,00,000/- Subodh Kumar 08-07-2008 SBI-347 735727 6,1 1,600/- Vinod Chandra 14-07-2008 Dena

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(3) of the Act and there being

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

iv) any information made available to the Assessing Officer under the scheme notified under section 135A; or (v)any information which requires action in consequence of the order of a Tribunal or a Court.] 10 Shankar Construction Whether it is “information to suggest” under amended law or “reason to believe” under erstwhile law the benchmark of “escapement of income

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

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