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

20 of the paper-book, wherein, the JCIT has given the remarks “satisfied”. To contend that where approval given for reopening of the assessment is given in a mechanical manner, without application of mind then in such circumstances such an approval cannot be said to be validly given approval and, therefore, the reopening of the assessment on the basis

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

20 of the paper-book, wherein, the JCIT has given the remarks “satisfied”. To contend that where approval given for reopening of the assessment is given in a mechanical manner, without application of mind then in such circumstances such an approval cannot be said to be validly given approval and, therefore, the reopening of the assessment on the basis

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

20 of the paper-book, wherein, the JCIT has given the remarks “satisfied”. To contend that where approval given for reopening of the assessment is given in a mechanical manner, without application of mind then in such circumstances such an approval cannot be said to be validly given approval and, therefore, the reopening of the assessment on the basis

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

20 of the paper-book, wherein, the JCIT has given the remarks “satisfied”. To contend that where approval given for reopening of the assessment is given in a mechanical manner, without application of mind then in such circumstances such an approval cannot be said to be validly given approval and, therefore, the reopening of the assessment on the basis

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

20 of the paper-book, wherein, the JCIT has given the remarks “satisfied”. To contend that where approval given for reopening of the assessment is given in a mechanical manner, without application of mind then in such circumstances such an approval cannot be said to be validly given approval and, therefore, the reopening of the assessment on the basis

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, 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 of the Act. 20. Facts in brief are that the return was filed on 31.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 4,24,41,600/- which was revised by the assessee declaring total income of Rs. 2,49,73,811/-. The said revision was done in order to reduce the claim u/s 54EC and 54F against the declared long term

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 of the Act. 20. Facts in brief are that the return was filed on 31.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 4,24,41,600/- which was revised by the assessee declaring total income of Rs. 2,49,73,811/-. The said revision was done in order to reduce the claim u/s 54EC and 54F against the declared long term

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 of the Act. 20. Facts in brief are that the return was filed on 31.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 4,24,41,600/- which was revised by the assessee declaring total income of Rs. 2,49,73,811/-. The said revision was done in order to reduce the claim u/s 54EC and 54F against the declared long term

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 of the Act. 20. Facts in brief are that the return was filed on 31.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 4,24,41,600/- which was revised by the assessee declaring total income of Rs. 2,49,73,811/-. The said revision was done in order to reduce the claim u/s 54EC and 54F against the declared long term

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 of the Act. 20. Facts in brief are that the return was filed on 31.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 4,24,41,600/- which was revised by the assessee declaring total income of Rs. 2,49,73,811/-. The said revision was done in order to reduce the claim u/s 54EC and 54F against the declared long term

PIONEER EDUCATION SOCIETY,HARYANA vs. ITO, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 430/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Jaya Singh,………………………………….………Appellant 6-B/9, North Shrikrishnapuri, Patna-800013, Bihar [Pan:Bfxps2289J] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Circle-1, Bhagalpur,………………………….....Respondent Bhagalpur, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Ranjeet Kr. Singh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Rinku Singh, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

20,490/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before

JAYA SINGH,PATNA vs. DC,AC CIRCLE-1, BHAGALPUR, BHAGALPUR, BIHAR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 430/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Jaya Singh,………………………………….………Appellant 6-B/9, North Shrikrishnapuri, Patna-800013, Bihar [Pan:Bfxps2289J] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Circle-1, Bhagalpur,………………………….....Respondent Bhagalpur, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Ranjeet Kr. Singh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Rinku Singh, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

20,490/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before

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

20,00,000 RTGS 5. The ld. Assessing Officer on pages no. 2 & 3 of the assessment order has observed that he has received an information, which was flagged on insight portal as uploaded by ld. DIT (Inv.)/ I&CI and such report was downloaded from the portal. According to this report, a survey was conducted in the case

JAGDAMBA ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ITO,2(1), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Jagdamba Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-2(1), Patna Vs Pan: Aaacj 5860 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.03.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rs. 20,00,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section

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

20,000/- through bearer cheques, definitely comes within the purview of Sec. 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD. Therefore, total such payments amounting to Rs. 1,44,87,045/- is being disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. 5 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 M/s. Kumar Construction Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia):- On perusal of Books of account

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

ZAIMUR RAHMAN,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 read with section 115BBE of the Act and assessed the same under the Act. I.T.A. No.: 321/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Zaimur Rahman. 11. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer, without giving any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, has erred in holding that Rs.11,43,600 shown

SUDHIR KUMAR,PATNA vs. I.T.O., PATNA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sudhir Kumar, Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Vs. Patna. Patna. (Pan: Amlpk4871E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri K. M. Mishra, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Dhanbad, Camp Office At Patna Appeal No. 71/Cit(A)-Ii/13-14 Dated 25.02.2014 For A.Y. 2010-11 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-6(1), Patna, Dated 26.03.2013. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 18.10.2010 Reporting Total Income Of Rs.3,01,260/-. In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ld. Ao Sought Details On Various Aspects Of The Income Reported By The Assessee & Completed The Assessment By Making The Additions As Under: “Total Income As Per Return Rs. 3,01,260/- Add: As Discussed In Para D Rs. 3,42,708/- Add: As Discussed In Para E Rs. 14,03,744/- Add: As Discussed In Para F Rs. 58,92,354/- Total Income Rs. 89,40,066/-“

section 44AD of the Act, ld. CIT(A) by accepting the said claim, recomputed the calculations made by the ld. AO by taking net profit rate of 8% which comes to Rs.1,37,100/-. Total income was thus re-computed by ld. CIT(A) by including interest income of Rs.3,68,871/- at Rs.5,05,971/-. 3 Sudhir Kumar