NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

section 263 read with Clause (a) of Explanation-21 thereunder. I, therefore, under the powers conferred u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereby set aside the order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 153A/143(3) for AY 2015-16 with direction to pass fresh order after conducting proper enquiries, including third party enquiries and investigations into the claim

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

section 263 read with Clause (a) of Explanation-21 thereunder. I, therefore, under the powers conferred u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereby set aside the order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 153A/143(3) for AY 2015-16 with direction to pass fresh order after conducting proper enquiries, including third party enquiries and investigations into the claim

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

section 263 read with Clause (a) of Explanation-21 thereunder. I, therefore, under the powers conferred u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereby set aside the order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 153A/143(3) for AY 2015-16 with direction to pass fresh order after conducting proper enquiries, including third party enquiries and investigations into the claim

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

section 263 read with Clause (a) of Explanation-21 thereunder. I, therefore, under the powers conferred u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereby set aside the order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 153A/143(3) for AY 2015-16 with direction to pass fresh order after conducting proper enquiries, including third party enquiries and investigations into the claim

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

section 263 read with Clause (a) of Explanation-21 thereunder. I, therefore, under the powers conferred u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereby set aside the order passed by Assessing Officer u/s. 153A/143(3) for AY 2015-16 with direction to pass fresh order after conducting proper enquiries, including third party enquiries and investigations into the claim

M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

263 ITR 0623 (Cal) has held that where the assessee-company P a g e 22 | 71 Assessment Year : 2010 -2011 did not produce subscribers of its share capital when required to do so, it failed to establish the identity of said subscribers. prove their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transactions and therefore addition under section 68

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

ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRABHAT,ARRAH vs. PCIT-1, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144B of the Act was passed on 27.02.2023 and the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 12,03,513/- after making addition of Rs. 8,14,053/- u/s 68 of the Act. On going through the order of the Ld. AO, the ld. Pr. CIT noticed on examining the case of the assessee that

BALKRISHNA BHALOTIA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMUI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

1 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Balkrishna Bhalotia Construction Pvt. Ltd. of Income Tax (Central), Patna dated 30th March, 2023 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act in A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are not in consonance with Rule 8 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules. They are descriptive

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), PATNA vs. MUNNI RAI, PATNA

Bench: Itat.

68 of the Act. Aggrieved with this action, the Revenue has filed the present appeal through the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing relief of Rs. 3,44,45,828/- by deleting addition made by the A.O. on account of Unexplained Sundry Creditors even though the assessee had not discharged the onus of burden

DEEPAK SHRAWAN BUDHIA,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF I.T., PATNA-1, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

263 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of disallowance of expenditure on account of non-deduction of TDS on freight as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the 1. T. Act, 1961 was passed without considering all provisions of Sec 147 and without considering its exemption provisions. 5. For that, the order was passed without considering

LORD VISHNU CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PATNA vs. PR. CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 23/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Lord Vishnu Constructions Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Private Limited Vs Patna 101, Lotus Apartment New Patliputra Colony Patna - 800013 [Pan: Aabcc5141M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna -1 (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 18/10/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Through Various Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Assailed The Order Of The Ld. Pr. Cit Framed U/S 263 Of The Act. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In Construction Business. The Regular Return Of Income Furnished Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass On Account Of Two Reasons, Namely, “Abnormal Increase In Cash Deposit During

1,24,68,481/-. Thereafter, the ld. Pr. CIT called for the assessment records under the powers conferred to him u/s 263 of the Act and observed that the assessee had made cash payments in excess of Rs. 20,000/- each day for a total amount of Rs.27,28,439/- and the same is apparently in contravention to the provisions

WHALE BLUE HI TECH PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CZAR CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD),PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PATNA., PATNA

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) also as there to the Ld. CIT(A) was constrained to pass an exparte order since the assessee did not respond to notices fixing the case for hearing.

section 144 of the Act at a total income of Rs. 3,15,00,409/-. The Ld. AO is seen to have passed an exparte order on the ground that no compliance was made to notices fixing the case for hearing. The assessee met with similar fate before the Ld. CIT(A) also as there