DCIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, PATNA vs. M/S DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 2(15) of the Act. It is seen that there is also a supporting finding that considerable expenses have been claimed under the following heads, which have been debited as under: Expenses Claimed A.Y. 13-14 A.Y. 12-13 Advertisement 3,881,536.00 36,890.00 Consumables 5,387,964.00 3,853,562.00 Power & Fuel 2

DCIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, PATNA vs. M/S DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 2(15) of the Act. It is seen that there is also a supporting finding that considerable expenses have been claimed under the following heads, which have been debited as under: Expenses Claimed A.Y. 13-14 A.Y. 12-13 Advertisement 3,881,536.00 36,890.00 Consumables 5,387,964.00 3,853,562.00 Power & Fuel 2

DCIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, PATNA vs. M/S DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 2(15) of the Act. It is seen that there is also a supporting finding that considerable expenses have been claimed under the following heads, which have been debited as under: Expenses Claimed A.Y. 13-14 A.Y. 12-13 Advertisement 3,881,536.00 36,890.00 Consumables 5,387,964.00 3,853,562.00 Power & Fuel 2

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S GAURAV RICE & FOOD PROCESSING PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

2 are against the deletion of\naddition of ₹87,65,840/- including Rs. 18,50,000/- made under\nSection 68 of the Act in respect of unexplained cash credit by the\nlearned Assessing Officer.\n03. The facts in brief are that a search action under Section 132 of the Act\nwas conducted on the assessee

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

15. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case, the Pr. CIT has erred in applying the sub-section (a) and (b) of the explanation - 2 of the section 263 of the Act as the order of assessment under the section 153A1143(3) of the Act was passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer after

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

15. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case, the Pr. CIT has erred in applying the sub-section (a) and (b) of the explanation - 2 of the section 263 of the Act as the order of assessment under the section 153A1143(3) of the Act was passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer after

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

15. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case, the Pr. CIT has erred in applying the sub-section (a) and (b) of the explanation - 2 of the section 263 of the Act as the order of assessment under the section 153A1143(3) of the Act was passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer after

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

15. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case, the Pr. CIT has erred in applying the sub-section (a) and (b) of the explanation - 2 of the section 263 of the Act as the order of assessment under the section 153A1143(3) of the Act was passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer after

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

15. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case, the Pr. CIT has erred in applying the sub-section (a) and (b) of the explanation - 2 of the section 263 of the Act as the order of assessment under the section 153A1143(3) of the Act was passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer after

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

15. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case, the Pr. CIT has erred in applying the sub-section (a) and (b) of the explanation - 2 of the section 263 of the Act as the order of assessment under the section 153A1143(3) of the Act was passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer after

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

15. For that on the fact and in circumstances of the case, the Pr. CIT has erred in applying the sub-section (a) and (b) of the explanation - 2 of the section 263 of the Act as the order of assessment under the section 153A1143(3) of the Act was passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer after

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]

section 68 are not applicable where the sum is not even credited in the books of account during the year. Similarly the decision ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Golden Line Studio Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 98 taxmann.com

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]

section 68 are not applicable where the sum is not even credited in the books of account during the year. Similarly the decision ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Golden Line Studio Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 98 taxmann.com

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]

section 68 are not applicable where the sum is not even credited in the books of account during the year. Similarly the decision ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Golden Line Studio Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 98 taxmann.com

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]

section 68 are not applicable where the sum is not even credited in the books of account during the year. Similarly the decision ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Golden Line Studio Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 98 taxmann.com

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]

section 68 are not applicable where the sum is not even credited in the books of account during the year. Similarly the decision ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Golden Line Studio Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 98 taxmann.com

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

15. Coming to the present case, it is noticed that return of income for the A.Y 2005-06 was furnished on 7-2-07 and therefore, the amendment in TA section 148 is not applicable. It is further noticed that the revenue has not brought any material in our kno wledge to establish the service of notice u/s.143(2

RANJEET SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 5 (5), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

15. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission along with documents and evidences on or before date of hearing. 16. For that the appellant may be given opportunity of personal hearing physically/virtually at the time of hearing of the appeal. 17. For that the whole order is bad in fact and law of the case

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