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

45,16,118 is unexplained cash credit under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act and assessed

VIJAYA SINGH,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1), PATNA, PATNA, BIHAR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 519/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Vijaya Singh,…………………………...….………Appellant M-55/22A, S.K. Nagar, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Asups6086N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………......Respondent Ward-6(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Jay Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-800001, Bihar

45,200/- on account of agricultural income in the year under consideration, but the ld. CIT(Appeals) as well as ld. Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the facts given by the assessee and simply they denied and added to the income of the assessee as undisclosed income under section 68

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, 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

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, 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

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

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

BABULAL PRASAD SUJIT KUMAR,MUZAFFARPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 276/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Babulal Prasad Sujit Kumar,……………….…Appellant Purani Bazar, Muzaffarpur-842001, Bihar [Pan:Aalfb9242J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.….Respondent Central Circle-Muzaffarpur, Chabdralok Bhawan, Near Chandralok Market, Naya Tola, Muzaffarpur-842002, Bihar Appearances By: Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 26, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 30, 2024 O R D E R

45,414/- made by the Assessing Officer treating the advances having been received from the customers as “unexplained” under 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. 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

section 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Therefore, the total addition comes to Rs.4,07,90,320/- (Rs.10,55,000/- plus Rs.3,97,35,320/-). 2.1. In support of rent debited in the income & expenditure account to the tune of Rs.3,43,84,722/-, the assessee furnished copy of three Memorandum

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

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

NAGENDRA SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 5 (3), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 272/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016

68,874/-, which attracts the provisions of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the capital gains arising out of such transfer as per provisions of sections 2(47)(v), 45

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. SHREE NANAK FERRO ALLOYS PVT LTD, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Shree Nanak Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-2 Room No.205, 2Nd Floor, Avrtar Acit, Circle-2, Patna, Bihar Vs. Building, Bisturpur, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics1706N Assessee By : S/Shri A.K. Rastogi Rakesh Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Md Ah Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2025

68 of the Act in the assessment farmed under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2016. 2.2. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding as under:- “I have carefully considered the findings of the AO in the assessment order, submission of the appellant, Remand report

SHARDINDU PRASAD SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “The appellant filed this appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna on 30/10/24 after delay of 69 days. The main I.T.A. No.: 630/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shardindu Prasad Singh. reason of delay in filing of memorandum

CHANDRAKANTI,SAHARSA, BIHAR vs. ITO, SAHARSA, BIHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 216/Pat/2024 (A.Y. 2017-2018) & I.T.A. No. 217/Pat/2024 (A.Y. 2016-2017) Chandrakanti,……………………..……..…………Appellant Shubham Fuels, Salkhuwa, Saharsa-852126, Bihar [Pan:Aeypc7137A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…..……………………….....Respondent Ward-3(4), Saharsa, Bihar Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 04, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 12, 2024 O R D E R

45,220/- in her return of income. Therefore, ld. Assessing Officer concluded that the difference of Rs.26,55,970/- is unexplained income and added the same to the total income under section 68

CHANDRAKANTI,SAHARSA, BIHAR vs. ITO, SAHARSA, BIHAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 216/Pat/2024 (A.Y. 2017-2018) & I.T.A. No. 217/Pat/2024 (A.Y. 2016-2017) Chandrakanti,……………………..……..…………Appellant Shubham Fuels, Salkhuwa, Saharsa-852126, Bihar [Pan:Aeypc7137A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…..……………………….....Respondent Ward-3(4), Saharsa, Bihar Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 04, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 12, 2024 O R D E R

45,220/- in her return of income. Therefore, ld. Assessing Officer concluded that the difference of Rs.26,55,970/- is unexplained income and added the same to the total income under section 68

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

45 PM BUY 1 115.40 5000 577000.00 0 NICKEL FUTURES 16/03/201101:23:57 PM BUY 5 115.45 5000 2886250.00 0 NICKEL FUTURES 16/03/201101:24:12 PM BUY 5 115.45 5000 2886250.00 3 NICKEL FUTURES 16/03/201101:25:50 PM BUY 10 115.45 5000 5772500.00 6 NICKEL FUTURES 16/03/201101:28:12 PM BUY 12 115.45 5000 6927000.00 9 NICKEL FUTURES 16/03/2011

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

45 SOT 257 (Mumbai) v) ACIT vs. Dattani Development [2016] 72 taxmann.com 330 (Mumbai – Trib.) 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the assessee supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated that section 43CA applies only to transfer of tangible immovable property being land or building or both, and not to intangible rights such as TDRs