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

21,63,000/-, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) deleted it, finding it to be double taxation and wrongly invoked under Section 68

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

68 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4]” Page 12 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 v) PCIT VS Kishore Kumar Mohapatra 298 Taxman 648 (SC)[05-04-2024) “SLP dismissed against order of High

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

68 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4]” Page 12 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 v) PCIT VS Kishore Kumar Mohapatra 298 Taxman 648 (SC)[05-04-2024) “SLP dismissed against order of High

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

68 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4]” Page 12 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 v) PCIT VS Kishore Kumar Mohapatra 298 Taxman 648 (SC)[05-04-2024) “SLP dismissed against order of High

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

68 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4]” Page 12 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 v) PCIT VS Kishore Kumar Mohapatra 298 Taxman 648 (SC)[05-04-2024) “SLP dismissed against order of High

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

68 - Whether Tribunal had rightly concluded that there was no merit in appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order - Held, yes [Para 4]” Page 12 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 v) PCIT VS Kishore Kumar Mohapatra 298 Taxman 648 (SC)[05-04-2024) “SLP dismissed against order of High

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

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, in case, the assessee failed to satisfy with three ingredients of the said section. The case of the assessee finds support from the several decisions as discussed hereinafter. In the case of ACIT vs. ATS Promoters & Builders (P) Ltd [2015] 57 taxmann.com 21

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, in case, the assessee failed to satisfy with three ingredients of the said section. The case of the assessee finds support from the several decisions as discussed hereinafter. In the case of ACIT vs. ATS Promoters & Builders (P) Ltd [2015] 57 taxmann.com 21

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, in case, the assessee failed to satisfy with three ingredients of the said section. The case of the assessee finds support from the several decisions as discussed hereinafter. In the case of ACIT vs. ATS Promoters & Builders (P) Ltd [2015] 57 taxmann.com 21

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, in case, the assessee failed to satisfy with three ingredients of the said section. The case of the assessee finds support from the several decisions as discussed hereinafter. In the case of ACIT vs. ATS Promoters & Builders (P) Ltd [2015] 57 taxmann.com 21

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, in case, the assessee failed to satisfy with three ingredients of the said section. The case of the assessee finds support from the several decisions as discussed hereinafter. In the case of ACIT vs. ATS Promoters & Builders (P) Ltd [2015] 57 taxmann.com 21

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

68 of the Act. In this regard, enquiry was carried out on ITBA, e-filling portal and ITD database and on perusal of 12 Shankar Construction the ITR as filed by the assessee, it was observed that the assessee has not Page 2 of 4 ABOFS0800R SHANKAR CONSTRUCTION Α.Υ. 2016-17 ITBA/AST/F/147/(SCN)2021- 22/1041820954(1) declared such loan

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S MAXXON VANIJYA & RESOURCES PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the order of the Ld

section 68 was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012\nw.e.f. 01.04.2013 wherein the onus of proving identity, genuineness and\ncreditworthiness of the creditor to the satisfaction of the AO has entirely\nshifted to the assessee. In this regard the relevant proviso as inserted is\nreproduced hereunder.\n[Provided that where the assessee is a company (not being a company

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 of the Act for unexplained capital, ₹21,08,600/- for unsubstantiated agricultural income treated as income from other sources, ₹33,20,000/- for Short Term Capital Gain on sale of immovable property and the total income was computed at ₹4,62,56,388 /-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before

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

21-06-2008 PNB-9926 797753 1,75,000/- Arvind Kr. Singh 09-08-2008 PNB-9926 797756 5,00,000/- Arvind Kr. Singh 30-08-2008 PNB-9926 821348 1,00,000/- Arvind Kr. Singh 06-09-2008 PNB-9926 797768 5,30,000/- Arvind Kr. Singh 12-11-2008 PNB-9926 821350 5,00,000/- Arvind Kr. Singh

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. 405/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Pioneer Education Society,……….…….....……Appellant C-310/311, Unitech Business Zone Nirvana Country, South City-Ii, Sector-50, Haryana, Pin Code No.122018 [Pan:Aadap0174C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………….Respondent Ward-1(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, New Dak Bunglow, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Yatin Sharma, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Rinku Singh, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 24, 2025 O R D E R

21, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order: April 24, 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), 1 Pioneer Education Society National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 15th March, 2024 passed for the assessment

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

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

21,766/-. Therefore, the company having shareholders’ fund of Rs.50,00,94,532/- as on 31.03.2016 is paper company. The assessee never produced clarification and documentary evidence even after repeated requests during the assessment proceedings. 6. That the order of the Ld.CIT(A) being erroneous in law and on facts to be vacated and the order