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]

68,566/- to the income of the assessee in assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2016 on the basis that according to rent controller order , the revised rent is effective from 27.07.2012. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of AO. 5. After hearing

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]

68,566/- to the income of the assessee in assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2016 on the basis that according to rent controller order , the revised rent is effective from 27.07.2012. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of AO. 5. After hearing

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]

68,566/- to the income of the assessee in assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2016 on the basis that according to rent controller order , the revised rent is effective from 27.07.2012. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of AO. 5. After hearing

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]

68,566/- to the income of the assessee in assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2016 on the basis that according to rent controller order , the revised rent is effective from 27.07.2012. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of AO. 5. After hearing

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]

68,566/- to the income of the assessee in assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2016 on the basis that according to rent controller order , the revised rent is effective from 27.07.2012. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of AO. 5. After hearing

M/S NORTH BIHAR DISTRIBUTOR,PURNEA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,199/- has been claimed, reporting Rs. 1,295/- as total income for the year under consideration. 5.2. Ld. AO drew attention to the provisions of section 44AD(5) according to which if an assessee claims that the profits from the business are lower than the profits and gains as specified in sub section (1) then, the assessee

M/S NORTH BIHAR DISTRIBUTOR,PURNEA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

68,199/- has been claimed, reporting Rs. 1,295/- as total income for the year under consideration. 5.2. Ld. AO drew attention to the provisions of section 44AD(5) according to which if an assessee claims that the profits from the business are lower than the profits and gains as specified in sub section (1) then, the assessee

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

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

44,87,045/- were withdrawals by the employee of the assessee for incurring expenses. In the remand report A.O. has disputed the credibility of affidavits by citing difference in father's name in the ID proof and affidavit even though the addresses were same. No comments have been given as regards incurring of expenditure in excess of Rs.20

PRABHU DAYAL BHARTIYA ,PATNA vs. DC/AC CIRCLE-4, PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.372/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Prabhu Dayal Bhartiya (Huf)….………. …………………....Appellant 701, Shanti Kunj, Chajjubagh, Patna, Bihar- 800001.. [Pan: Aachp7738Q] Vs. Dc/Ac, Circle-4, Patna…....…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 15, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Is Directed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.07.2025 Passed By The Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Hindu Undivided Family (Huf), Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013– 14 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹6,120/-. The Case Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On The Basis Of Information Received From The Investigation Wing That The Assessee Was A Beneficiary Of Accommodation Entries In The Form Of Long-Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) From The Sale Of Shares Amounting To ₹55,16,804/- Received From M/S. Aayan Commercial Pvt. Ltd. & Its Associate Concerns. It

44,45,694/- as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act and added the same to the total

JAYA SINGH,PATNA vs. DC,AC CIRCLE-1, BHAGALPUR, BHAGALPUR, BIHAR

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. 430/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Jaya Singh,………………………………….………Appellant 6-B/9, North Shrikrishnapuri, Patna-800013, Bihar [Pan:Bfxps2289J] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Circle-1, Bhagalpur,………………………….....Respondent Bhagalpur, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Ranjeet Kr. Singh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Rinku Singh, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

44,010/- and (iii) addition on account of advances from customers as unexplained credit as per the provisions of section 68

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. 430/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Jaya Singh,………………………………….………Appellant 6-B/9, North Shrikrishnapuri, Patna-800013, Bihar [Pan:Bfxps2289J] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Circle-1, Bhagalpur,………………………….....Respondent Bhagalpur, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Ranjeet Kr. Singh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Rinku Singh, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

44,010/- and (iii) addition on account of advances from customers as unexplained credit as per the provisions of section 68

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

44,14,568/-. The assessee offered the income to tax as per the books of account, which was not disputed by the learned AO. In other words the sales made by the assessee during this period, was also not doubted and disputed by the authorities below. We also note that the increase in turnover of the assessee was attributed

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. BIHAR TRADE TOWER(JV), PATNA

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.105/Pat/2020 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Circle-1, Patna ……………………………..........................……….……Appellant Vs. Bihar Trade Tower (Jv), Patna....……...…………………………………....…..Respondent 46/46, Patliputra Colony, Near Sahyog Hospital, Patna, Bihar – 800013. [Pan: Aacab0114D]

section 68 was duly complied with and he also proceeded to record that in case, the Assessing Officer was unsatisfied with the quality of documents submitted before him then he could have issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act or conducting any other independent enquiry [page 8 of the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A)]. Needless

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), GAYA, GAYA vs. PAWAN KUMAR SINGH, ROHTAS

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17 Ito, Ward-3(1), Gaya…………..…………....…….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Pawan Kumar Singh…………..…..………………….....……...…..…..Respondent C/O Vidhayanchal Singh, Tarhangla, Dehri-On-Sone, Bihar – 821307. [Pan: Aqsps7942P] Appearances By: Shri Anuj Ganguli, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 09, 2025 Order Per Madhumita Roy: The Instant Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.01.2025 Passed By Nfac U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

68 of the Act as unexplained income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed by restricting the addition @8% of the total contractual receipts of Rs.2,02,70,371/- which comes to Rs.16,21,630/-. 5. Dissatisfied, the revenue

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

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

68 of the Income Tax Act. It is pertinent to note that the ld. 1st Appellate Authority has decided the appeals for A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2013-14 by the common impugned order. 2 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & C.O. No. 04/PAT/2022 (in ITA No. 110/PAT/2019) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Sonamoti Agrotech Pvt. Limited 3. On receipt of notice

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

44 PM BUY 1 461.55 1000 461550.00 0 COPPER FUTURES 03/02/2011 06:04:30 PM BUY 1 463.85 1000 463850.00 4 ANUSUYA AJITSARIA Multiple SS Product Name Trade Time B_S Qty Price Value Factor Gap ALUMINIUM 5 TON 01/02/2011 05:32:09 PM BUY 6 115.75 5000 3472500.00 6 FUTURES ALUMINIUM 5 TON 01/02/2011

PARAS NATH GUPTA,RAMNA ROAD , GAYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DC/AC CIRCLE-I

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in\nview of the above directions

section 145(3) of the Act and\nPage 4\nI.T.A. No.: 345/PAT/2024\n Assessment Year: 2017-18\nParas Nath Gupta.\nconsidering the facts and the circumstances in this case, he estimated\nthe net income at Rs. 1,94,88,142/- i.e. @ 2% of the gross turnover of\nRs. 97,44,07,126/- after considering expenses debited in the trading

MANI BHUSHAN KUMAR,PATNA vs. CIT, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 147 when there is no failure on part of the appellant to disclose the material facts and particulars of the case. 6. For that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering the fact that the reasons recorded by Assessing Officer has been erroneous and the assessment order passed is illegal, void ab initio