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

35,240/- ………… of penny stock of Multiplus Resources Ltd. for the AY 2011-12. Hence, I consider the case to be fit for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 in the case of Shri Amar Kasera HUF for AY 2011-12. Put up before the Ld. JCIT, Central Range-1, Patna for kind approval

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

35,240/- ………… of penny stock of Multiplus Resources Ltd. for the AY 2011-12. Hence, I consider the case to be fit for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 in the case of Shri Amar Kasera HUF for AY 2011-12. Put up before the Ld. JCIT, Central Range-1, Patna for kind approval

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

35,240/- ………… of penny stock of Multiplus Resources Ltd. for the AY 2011-12. Hence, I consider the case to be fit for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 in the case of Shri Amar Kasera HUF for AY 2011-12. Put up before the Ld. JCIT, Central Range-1, Patna for kind approval

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

35,240/- ………… of penny stock of Multiplus Resources Ltd. for the AY 2011-12. Hence, I consider the case to be fit for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 in the case of Shri Amar Kasera HUF for AY 2011-12. Put up before the Ld. JCIT, Central Range-1, Patna for kind approval

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

35,240/- ………… of penny stock of Multiplus Resources Ltd. for the AY 2011-12. Hence, I consider the case to be fit for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 in the case of Shri Amar Kasera HUF for AY 2011-12. Put up before the Ld. JCIT, Central Range-1, Patna for kind approval

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

PIONEER EDUCATION SOCIETY,HARYANA vs. ITO, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 405/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Pioneer Education Society,……….…….....……Appellant C-310/311, Unitech Business Zone Nirvana Country, South City-Ii, Sector-50, Haryana, Pin Code No.122018 [Pan:Aadap0174C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………….Respondent Ward-1(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, New Dak Bunglow, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Yatin Sharma, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Rinku Singh, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 24, 2025 O R D E R

35,320/- was treated as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act and added to the total

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

35,000/- Om Prakash Kuamr 27-11-2008 SBI-436 297105 69,000/- Omkar Kumar 05-01-2009 Dnea-285 975937 4,30,000/- R.S. Kumar 17-06-2008 SBI-347 735724 4,70,000/- Satyendra Sharma 26-03-2009 Dena-285 975985 96,000/- Subhash Kumar 31-05-2008 PNB-9926 821336 1,50,000/- Subhash Kumar

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

35,000/-, it would result in double addition of the same income. First, the assessee suo moto offering the sales in the profit and loss account and secondly, by way of making this addition which is not permissible under the Act. 2.4. Besides, addition was made by the learned AO u/s 69A of the Act which is not correct section

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. SONAMOTI AGROTECH PVT LTD, PATNA

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

68 was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 wherein the onus of proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditor to the satisfaction of the AO 13 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & C.O. No. 04/PAT/2022 (in ITA No. 110/PAT/2019) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Sonamoti Agrotech Pvt. Limited has entirely shifted to the assessee. In this regard the relevant proviso

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

Section 147 of the Act and has grossly acted in violation of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs ITO reported in [2002] 125 Taxman 963 (SC) and [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC). 17. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, ld. Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.2,00,04,931/- in A.Y. 2016-17. In A.Y. 2017-18, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has observed that the assessee-company has taken a loan of Rs.1,06,02,895/- from M/s. Trailblazer Edusol (P) Limited and concurring his view with regard

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, ld. Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.2,00,04,931/- in A.Y. 2016-17. In A.Y. 2017-18, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has observed that the assessee-company has taken a loan of Rs.1,06,02,895/- from M/s. Trailblazer Edusol (P) Limited and concurring his view with regard

ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA vs. M/S SUN COMTECH PVT LTD, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

35 PM SELL 4 113.20 5000 2264000.00 1 ZINC FUTURES 21/03/201104:03:06 PM SELL 12 113.20 5000 6792000.00 9 SAKET SINGHAL B_S Qty Price Multiple SS Product Name Trade Time Value Factor Gap NICKEL FUTURES 16/03/201101:14:27 PM BUY 3 1184.70 250 888525.00 0 NICKEL FUTURES 16/03/201101:14:36 PM SELL 3 1149.80 250 862350.00 1 SHRESTHA

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

35 filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and as extracted from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is as under: “In the present case assessee is an individual having no source of income. During the relevant year under consideration the appellant was found to have deposited Rs. 30,50,000/- bearing A/C No. 2078104000009492 in IDBI Bank, Anishabad Branch

AJAY KUMAR GHOSH,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

35,920/- as against the original determined taxable income of Rs.9,68,270/-. Dissatisfied with this action, the assessee carried the matter in appeal but ld. CIT(Appeals) concurred with the ld. Assessing Officer. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee took us through page 8 of the paper book and submitted that the assessee has filed an application

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), NAGPUR vs. KHARE AND TARKUNDE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roydcit, Central Circle-2(1), Khare & Tarkunde Nagpur Vs Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 235, Shivaji Complex, Dharmpeth, Nagpur Pan : Aaack 7184 N Department Assessee Assessee By : Shri Sachin V. Luthra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2026 O R D E R

35,000 - 6,51,63,000) added to the total income of the assessee u/s. 43CA of the Act. 4. Assailing the above order of Ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions of the assessee allowed this ground of appeal holding that addition made by the Ld. AO u/s. 43CA

KUMAR SUMAN SINGH,PATNA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

35,000/- should be\naccepted as proved capital in hands of the appellant as on 01.04.1997,\ncannot be accepted. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I hold that\nappellant has failed to bring on record any documentary evidence to prove\nthe opening capital of Rs. 2,68,385/-. Accordingly, the addition is\nconfirmed the ground nos. 1 to 5 taken

DCIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, PATNA vs. M/S DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

35,09,829.00 (v) Other receipts – Rs. 12,24,776.25 Furthermore, the Ld. AO found that the receipts from pharmacy exceeded the tolerance limit of 20% as per the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. It is seen that there is also a supporting finding that considerable expenses have been claimed under the following heads, which have