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

section 68 & secondly\naddition of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- in respect of unexplained cash credit under section

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

SAWITA SHAH,PURNIA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNIA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrasawita Shah, Income Tax Officer, W/O Kamal Kishor Gupta Sudi Ward 3(1), Purnia Tola, Ansari Thakur Tola, Vs Dalmapur, Baisi, Purnia, Bihar - 854315 (Pan: Gnzps0882J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

25,000/- is actually appellants previous years savings which she had invested in the business of CSP to smooth flow of the business, under section 68

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. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order

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. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order

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. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order

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. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order

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. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order

VIJAYA SINGH,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1), PATNA, PATNA, BIHAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 519/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Vijaya Singh,…………………………...….………Appellant M-55/22A, S.K. Nagar, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Asups6086N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………......Respondent Ward-6(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Jay Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-800001, Bihar

68 of the Act. The assessee does not maintain books of account. (5) For the in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has arbitrarily observed that section II5BBF. is applicable. The section 115BBE is not applicable in the case of the assessee. The imposition of tax at the rate of 60 percent together

BIRJU KUMAR,VAISHALI vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (3), VAISHALI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

25-07- 2024. 2. For that the NFAC erred in confirming the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Vaishali, ('the Ld. AO’), assessing the appellant under section 144 of the Act, vide order dated 27-12-2019 at an income of Rs 55,04,960/- against the returned income

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

25,443/- 2. Add: Anonymous donation under Rs.2,61,72,000/- section 115BBC of the Income Tax 3. Less: Rebate allowed under section Rs.13,08,600/- 115BBC out of anonymous donation viz. 5 per cent of the donation or Rs.1.00 lakh which is higher Total Rs.2,87,88,843/- 4. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal

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

25,000 in State Bank of India during the Financial Year 2014-15 corresponding to Assessment Year 2015-16 is unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act and assessed the same under the Act. 10. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer, without giving

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

25-10-2011. The extract of order sheet entry of this date is being reproduced: “It is seen from the Books of A/c and the bank statements that payments to these persons, as mentioned in the list , for various expenses, in excess of Rs. 20,000/- has been made through bearer cheques Rs.20,000/-. He is required to explain

KRISHNA MOHAN ,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14, PATNA , PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Krishna Mohan Prop-M/S Maa Ambey Traders, Acit, Circle-14, Patna Maurari Complex, Karbigahiya, Patna, Bihar Vs. Patna-800001, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahupm5205C Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Md. Ah Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2025

25,44,14,568/-. The assessee offered the income to tax as per the books of account, which was not disputed by the learned AO. In other words the sales made by the assessee during this period, was also not doubted and disputed by the authorities below. We also note that the increase in turnover of the assessee was attributed