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

19 I.T.A. No.: 304/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjeet Singh. assessee, the income-tax return was duly filed in response to notices u/s.148 thereafter, it was mandatory on the AO to issue notices u/s.143(2)/142(1). Accordingly, the facts of the case-laws referred are different form the facts of the case under consideration. As a result, Ground Nos.1

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

19. Order pronounced in the open court on 31.3.2010. 5. Thus, neither the Ld. CIT(A) nor the ITAT had decided any other ground of appeal and the merits of the case were not discussed apart from discussion on the legal issue on the basis of which the 1st reassessment order was cancelled. Subsequently, the Ld. AO reopened the 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

19. For that on the facts and in Circumstances of the case the officer has erred in considering irrelevant materials, which has vitiated the order of Assessment. 20. For that the impugned order is misconceived and arbitrary in nature. 21. For that the appellant prays to add, amend, modify, and any ground, if necessarily. 22. For that other grounds

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

19. For that on the facts and in Circumstances of the case the officer has erred in considering irrelevant materials, which has vitiated the order of Assessment. 20. For that the impugned order is misconceived and arbitrary in nature. 21. For that the appellant prays to add, amend, modify, and any ground, if necessarily. 22. For that other grounds

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

19. For that on the facts and in Circumstances of the case the officer has erred in considering irrelevant materials, which has vitiated the order of Assessment. 20. For that the impugned order is misconceived and arbitrary in nature. 21. For that the appellant prays to add, amend, modify, and any ground, if necessarily. 22. For that other grounds

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

19. For that on the facts and in Circumstances of the case the officer has erred in considering irrelevant materials, which has vitiated the order of Assessment. 20. For that the impugned order is misconceived and arbitrary in nature. 21. For that the appellant prays to add, amend, modify, and any ground, if necessarily. 22. For that other grounds

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

19. For that on the facts and in Circumstances of the case the officer has erred in considering irrelevant materials, which has vitiated the order of Assessment. 20. For that the impugned order is misconceived and arbitrary in nature. 21. For that the appellant prays to add, amend, modify, and any ground, if necessarily. 22. For that other grounds

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

19. For that on the facts and in Circumstances of the case the officer has erred in considering irrelevant materials, which has vitiated the order of Assessment. 20. For that the impugned order is misconceived and arbitrary in nature. 21. For that the appellant prays to add, amend, modify, and any ground, if necessarily. 22. For that other grounds

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

19. For that on the facts and in Circumstances of the case the officer has erred in considering irrelevant materials, which has vitiated the order of Assessment. 20. For that the impugned order is misconceived and arbitrary in nature. 21. For that the appellant prays to add, amend, modify, and any ground, if necessarily. 22. For that other grounds

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 139(9) of the Act and 292B of the Act, the AO has treated the return of income as invalid which is wrong ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya and in defense, he relied on certain decisions namely PCIT Vs Silver Line 363 ITR 465 (Delhi

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 139(9) of the Act and 292B of the Act, the AO has treated the return of income as invalid which is wrong ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya and in defense, he relied on certain decisions namely PCIT Vs Silver Line 363 ITR 465 (Delhi

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 139(9) of the Act and 292B of the Act, the AO has treated the return of income as invalid which is wrong ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya and in defense, he relied on certain decisions namely PCIT Vs Silver Line 363 ITR 465 (Delhi

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 139(9) of the Act and 292B of the Act, the AO has treated the return of income as invalid which is wrong ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya and in defense, he relied on certain decisions namely PCIT Vs Silver Line 363 ITR 465 (Delhi

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 139(9) of the Act and 292B of the Act, the AO has treated the return of income as invalid which is wrong ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya and in defense, he relied on certain decisions namely PCIT Vs Silver Line 363 ITR 465 (Delhi

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 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

SANTOSH KUMAR KESHRI,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 226/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Santosh Kumar Keshri,………..…….…………Appellant Shop No. 3, Jaiswal Market, Sabji Mandi, Mithapur-800001, Bihar [Pan:Asapk1127E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,...Respondent Dc/Ac Circle-6, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Supriya Sharma, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

19, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R Per Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ):- The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 29th November, 2023 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18. 1 Santosh

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA, PATNA vs. SMT. SIPRA GUPTA, PATNA

19. In the facts of the present appeal, it is an admitted factual position that\nthe disputed transactions are duly recorded in the books of accounts of the\nassessee. Therefore, at the very threshold the provisions of section 69 will not\nget attracted. In fact, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue\nfairly accepted aforesaid factual and legal position

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

68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, ld. Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.2,00,04,931/- in A.Y. 2016-17. In A.Y. 2017-18, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has observed that the assessee-company has taken a loan of Rs.1,06,02,895/- from M/s. Trailblazer Edusol (P) Limited and concurring his view with regard