SANOJ KUMAR SINGH ,HAJIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3) , VAISHALI

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

23,684/- and added the same under Section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The Assessing

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

ITO, WARD-1(EXEMPTION), PATNA vs. AISHWARYA FOUNDATION, PATNA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 103/Pat/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Aishwarya Foundation, Patna Exemption Vs 46, Patliputra Colony Near Sahyog Hospital Patliputra Colony Patna - 800013 [Pan: Aacta0834A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Patna, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 10/09/2020, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue Raised By The Department Before Us In The Instant Lis Relates To The Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.2,61,72,000/- By The Ld. Cit(A) Made By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 30/12/2016 On Account Of Alleged Anonymous Donations Made U/S 115Bbc Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Trust Is A Charitable Organization Registered U/S 12Aa Of Act. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 24/06/2015 Declaring Total Income At ‘Nil’. Case Of Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass Followed By Issuance Of Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted From The Income & Expenditure Account That The Assessee Had Shown Income At Rs.2,61,72,000/- Which Was Received As Donation & Incurred Expenses To The Tune Of Rs.2,22,47,910/- Which Resulted In Income Over Expenditure At

23 C) of section 10 or any trust or institution referred to in section 11, includes any income by way of any anonymous donation, the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- (i) the amount of income-tax calculated at the rate of thirty per cent on the aggregate of anonymous donations received in excess

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 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23

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 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23

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 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23

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 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23

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 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23

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

23-09-2011. The extract of the letter is being reproduced below: “…..please explain whether tax has been deducted on it. If yes, furnish your Form 26Q and challan showing the payment of tax deducted. If not, please explain, why it should not be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia). ” 14. In response, the assessee in its reply, submitted

RAJBANSH RAM,BHABUA vs. ITO WARD- 3(5), SASARAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68" 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has very strangely has stated as under Addition upheld: Rs.107632265 whereas the Assessing Officer has assessed the assessee at Rs.32,28,967/- being 3% NP of alleged turnover determined at Rs.10,76,32,265/- 11. That on the facts and circumstances

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. SONAMOTI AGROTECH PVT LTD, PATNA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

23, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna dated 02.01.2019 passed for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Revenue has taken four grounds of appeal, but its grievance revolves around a single issue, namely

ERFAN ALAM,KHAGARIA vs. ITO, WARD- 2 (1), BEGUSARAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2015-16

23,40,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act, representing cash deposits etc. in the Bank account of the assessee. Apparently, the assessee did not file any return of income and before the Ld. Assessing Officer, he did not file adequate evidence/documents to support his claim that the impugned amount represented the turnover of business. However, the Ld. Assessing Officer

AMUL FEED PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 2(1), PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.184/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Amul Feed Pvt. Ltd……………….....…..…………………....Appellant Shakti Punj, Ashoka Vihar Biscomaum Colony, Patna, Bihar - 800007. [Pan: Aafca0769E] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Patna.……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singhal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Learned Nfac ["Cit(A)"] For The Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessing Officer Passed An Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Making An Addition Of Rs.1,37,39,437 As Unexplained Cash Credit Under Section 69A Of The Act, Invoking The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Further Made Another Addition Of Rs.1,00,88,000 As Unexplained Credit Under Section 68 Of The Act, Again Invoking Section 115Bbe & Taxing The Same At The Rate Of 60%. 3. Aggrieved By The Said Assessment Order, The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Cit(A). However, The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Ex Parte For Non-Compliance With The Notices Issued By The

23, 2025 आदेश / ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the learned NFAC ["CIT(A)"] for the Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer passed an assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income

PRERNA AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 68 of the Act, after giving the benefit of opening cash balance of Rs. 23,22,604/-. 1.2 Before