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

68,200/- made during the demonetization period as unexplained income u/s 69A and passed the assessment order u/s 144 dated 30.10.2019. Page 2 of 8 I.T.A. No.: 82/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Suryadeo Prasad. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and very perused the record and the submissions made were also examined. We find that

SANGAM ALMIRAH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUZAFFARPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2018-19 dated 10.06.2025, which has been passed against the penalty order u/s 270A of the Act, dated 10.02.2022. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the orders of the authorities below

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

M/S SHARDA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,PATNA vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals)-1, Patna [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 07.08.2018 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 22.03.2016. 2. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1. For that

ACIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PATNA vs. M/S SHARDA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) by ld. Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals)-1, Patna [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 07.08.2018 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 22.03.2016. 2. The assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds: “1. For that

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

ASHOKA TUBEWELL BORING ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

250/- u/s 139(1) of the Act on 26.03.2017. The Id. AO\nduring the assessment proceedings observed that there was a huge\ngap of income between the income as per return filed u/s 139(1) of\nthe Act vis-à-vis return filed u/s 153A of the Act as the assessee has\noffered for taxation of ₹2.00 crores as undisclosed

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

In the result, the order of the Ld

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter\nreferred to as 'the Act') for AY 2012-13 dated 26.08.2021.\n2. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following\nrevised grounds of appeal:\n“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld.\nCIT(A) is not justified in deleting

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

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

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