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

M/S NORTH BIHAR DISTRIBUTOR,PURNEA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,199/- has been claimed, reporting Rs. 1,295/- as total income for the year under consideration. 5.2. Ld. AO drew attention to the provisions of section 44AD(5) according to which if an assessee claims that the profits from the business are lower than the profits and gains as specified in sub section (1) then, the assessee

M/S NORTH BIHAR DISTRIBUTOR,PURNEA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,199/- has been claimed, reporting Rs. 1,295/- as total income for the year under consideration. 5.2. Ld. AO drew attention to the provisions of section 44AD(5) according to which if an assessee claims that the profits from the business are lower than the profits and gains as specified in sub section (1) then, the assessee

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]

5. In the case of Sanjeev Aggarwal Vs. DCIT [2016] 70 taxmann.com 265(Chandigarh-Trib.) the Hon'ble Chandigarh Tribunal has held that where theAssessing Officer passed an order under section 147 read with section 143(3)of the act for making assessment without issuing notice under section 143(2) ofthe Act, it would be invalid

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]

5. In the case of Sanjeev Aggarwal Vs. DCIT [2016] 70 taxmann.com 265(Chandigarh-Trib.) the Hon'ble Chandigarh Tribunal has held that where theAssessing Officer passed an order under section 147 read with section 143(3)of the act for making assessment without issuing notice under section 143(2) ofthe Act, it would be invalid

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]

5. In the case of Sanjeev Aggarwal Vs. DCIT [2016] 70 taxmann.com 265(Chandigarh-Trib.) the Hon'ble Chandigarh Tribunal has held that where theAssessing Officer passed an order under section 147 read with section 143(3)of the act for making assessment without issuing notice under section 143(2) ofthe Act, it would be invalid

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]

5. In the case of Sanjeev Aggarwal Vs. DCIT [2016] 70 taxmann.com 265(Chandigarh-Trib.) the Hon'ble Chandigarh Tribunal has held that where theAssessing Officer passed an order under section 147 read with section 143(3)of the act for making assessment without issuing notice under section 143(2) ofthe Act, it would be invalid

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]

5. In the case of Sanjeev Aggarwal Vs. DCIT [2016] 70 taxmann.com 265(Chandigarh-Trib.) the Hon'ble Chandigarh Tribunal has held that where theAssessing Officer passed an order under section 147 read with section 143(3)of the act for making assessment without issuing notice under section 143(2) ofthe Act, it would be invalid

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

68,523.18 and Rs. 13,93,625.00 without charging any interest. The landlord is the Director of the society Smt. Farhat Hasan. This leads to the benefit to the person referred to in section 13(3) and these investments are not allowable investment as per provision of section 11(5) of the I. T. Act 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

5 (URO) and also to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Eicher Ltd. (07) 294 ITR 310 and also to the decisions reported in 108/ 116 TTJ 225 (Ahd.-B)/(08) 22 SOT 68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should

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

5 (URO) and also to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Eicher Ltd. (07) 294 ITR 310 and also to the decisions reported in 108/ 116 TTJ 225 (Ahd.-B)/(08) 22 SOT 68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should

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

5 (URO) and also to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Eicher Ltd. (07) 294 ITR 310 and also to the decisions reported in 108/ 116 TTJ 225 (Ahd.-B)/(08) 22 SOT 68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should

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

5 (URO) and also to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Eicher Ltd. (07) 294 ITR 310 and also to the decisions reported in 108/ 116 TTJ 225 (Ahd.-B)/(08) 22 SOT 68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should

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

5 (URO) and also to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Eicher Ltd. (07) 294 ITR 310 and also to the decisions reported in 108/ 116 TTJ 225 (Ahd.-B)/(08) 22 SOT 68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should

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

5 (URO) and also to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Eicher Ltd. (07) 294 ITR 310 and also to the decisions reported in 108/ 116 TTJ 225 (Ahd.-B)/(08) 22 SOT 68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should

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

5 (URO) and also to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Eicher Ltd. (07) 294 ITR 310 and also to the decisions reported in 108/ 116 TTJ 225 (Ahd.-B)/(08) 22 SOT 68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should

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

5. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 10.01.2024 partly allowed the appeal. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee raised the issue of non-service of the notice u/s 148 of the Act and filed written submission on various grounds of appeal although no compliance was made

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