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

6 For that the cash deposit could have been, at the most, be considered as turnover of the business and net profit @ 8% as per provisions of section 44AD should have been applied an income should have been calculated accordingly. 7 For that the taxable income should have been calculated after allowing the exemption limit under 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

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

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)

250(6) of the Act, the decisions in CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattacharya 118 ITR 461, M/s. Chemipol V/s. Union of India [Central Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009], Nandramdas Dwarkadas, AIR 1958 MP 260 (Bombay), Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Vs. Shankar 1984(Supp) SCC 63 and New India Assurance Vs. Srinivasan (2000) 3 SCC 242, Whirlpool of India

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

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

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

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

A V ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 222/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Av Ispat Private Limited Acit, Central Circle-2 Agamkuan, Patna-800007 Patna-800001, Bihar Vs Bihar [Pan: Aaca9469P] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ashwani Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [Learned Cit (A)] Dated 28.04.2023, Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 14Th March, 2022. 2. When The Case Was Called For, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. We Observe That On The Previous Occasions When The Case Was Fixed For Hearing On 29Th July, 2024 & 30Th July, 2024, None Appeared. However, Considering The Smallness Of The Issue & That The Facts Were Available On Record, It Was Decided To Adjudicate These Appeals With Assistance Of Learned Departmental Representative. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order Passed By Learned Cit(A)-3, Patna Is Unjust, Unwarranted & Bad In Law.

68 of the Act, assessee preferred the appeal before the ld. CIT (A) taking legal grounds challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings and also challenging the impugned additions. We on perusal of the impugned order notice that assessee failed to appear on the date of hearing and also did not filed any written submissions. ITA No. 222/Pat./2023 AV Ispat

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

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for the Assessment Year 2015-16 by the ld. First Appellate Authority, viz. the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) at National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, is bad both in law and on facts. 3. For that the order of assessment dated 30/01/2024 Bearing DIN and Order number TBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1060257194

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

6 Maruti Nandan Food Products Pvt.Ltd. AY 2013-14 7.2. From the perusal of the records placed before us, we could not lay our hands on the affidavits which are claimed to have been filed in the course of assessment proceedings by the assessee. In this respect, ld. Counsel has referred to two letters dated 23.11.2022 and 01.12.2022 addressed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 dated 09.10.2023, I.T.A. No.: 351/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajbansh Ram. which has been passed against the assessment order u/s 144 of the Act, dated 10.12.2019. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. That