SURYADEO PRASAD,SIWAN vs. ITO WARD-2 (3), SIWAN

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 is bad in law and fact. 2 For that the learned CIT (A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs 2768200/- u/s 69A of the IT Act, being the cash deposit in the bank account. 3 For that the notices of hearing of appeal could not be looked into by the appellant, since he was not very

KUMARI SANJANA SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.47/Pat/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kumari Sanjana Singh................................…...........................……….……Appellant W/O Shiv Nararyan Singh, Harsh Egg Centre, Near Anishabad Golambar, Manik Chand Talab, Anishabad, Patna-800002. [Pan: Cleps6120G] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(5), Patna.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhi Sarkar, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 27, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 27, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.02.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Patna-2 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer as well as the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is bad in law and on fact. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income

ROHIT KHANDELWAL,MADHUBANI vs. AC/DCIT, CENT, CIR, MUZAFFARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2021-22

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2021-22 confirming the levy of penalty levied u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act. 2. Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT appeared on behalf of the revenue. 2 Rohit Khandelwal

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16. 2. Since the facts and issue involved in all the captioned appeals are identical, hence, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The assessee’s appeal

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16. 2. Since the facts and issue involved in all the captioned appeals are identical, hence, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The assessee’s appeal

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16. 2. Since the facts and issue involved in all the captioned appeals are identical, hence, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The assessee’s appeal

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16. 2. Since the facts and issue involved in all the captioned appeals are identical, hence, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The assessee’s appeal

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16. 2. Since the facts and issue involved in all the captioned appeals are identical, hence, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The assessee’s appeal

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S CONTESSA COMMERCIAL CO. PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

68 on account of unexplained credit. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 04.11.2017 declaring total income ‘NIL’ and current year loss of Rs.60,00,834/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued on 14.08.2018 fixing

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

In the result, the order of the Ld

sections": ["153C", "153A", "143(3)", "144", "68", "250"], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) erred in deciding an issue not arising

SHANKAR,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 of the Act and charged to tax under section 115BBE of the Act and the total income was assessed at ₹15,85,575/-. Before the ld. CIT(Appeals), there was no explanation from the assessee to substantiate the grounds of appeal, therefore, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed on account of non-prosecution

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

250(2) of the Act read with Sub-section (6B) and the guidelines prescribed in the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021 vide notification dated 28.12.2021.7 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 14,50,000/-. 7. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC

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)

68 previous year savings treated as unexplained income in the case of the appellant which is bad in fact and law of the case. 4. For that the Ld. CIT (A) Addl/JCIT(A)-, Guwahati has erred in sustaining the order of the A.O. and ignoring of the fact the amount deposited is Rs.2, 25,000/- which is under the basic

M/S MARUTI NANDAN FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 2(1), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

section 68 of the Act to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the loan creditors as well as the genuineness of the transactions. For this, in the interest of justice and fair play, we find it proper to remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication by considering the material placed

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2. The only issue raised in grounds of appeal against the confirmation of addition of Rs. 1,00,23,684/- by the Ld. CIT(A) as made

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

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

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