ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S GAURAV RICE & FOOD PROCESSING PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68 of\nthe Income tax Act.\nThe undisputed fact is that a search and seizure operations u/s 132(1) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 was conducted on 11.08.2017 in Gaurav Rice Mill group cases of Patna.\nThe appellant Sunil Kumar is related to Gaurav Rice mill group and also subjected to\nsearch. Apparently as can be seen from

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

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

SANTOSH KUMAR KESHRI,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 226/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Santosh Kumar Keshri,………..…….…………Appellant Shop No. 3, Jaiswal Market, Sabji Mandi, Mithapur-800001, Bihar [Pan:Asapk1127E] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,...Respondent Dc/Ac Circle-6, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Supriya Sharma, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

section 68 can be done, is unfair and harsh and not equitable in law, hence liable to be set aside. 5

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:

68, section 69, section 69A, section 695, section 69C or section 69D. I.T.A. No.47/Pat/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kumari Sanjana Singh 5

SHREEPUNJ CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,BEGUSARAI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), BEGUSARAI

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

section 68 by treating 2 A.Y. 2015-2016 Shreepunj Construction Pvt. Ltd., Begusarai the share capital of Rs.5,00,000/- claimed to be received by the assessee- company from Shri Krishna Kumar as unexplained. 5

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA, PATNA vs. SMT. SIPRA GUPTA, PATNA

68 of the Act. Since,\nwe have upheld the order of the learned CIT (A) on this issue,\ntherefore, ground no. 4 become infructuous and academic and\nconsequently dismissed.\n7.\nThe issue raised in ground no. 5 is not pressed at the time hearing,\nhence, dismissed.\n8.\nIn the Result, the appeals of the Revenue and CO of the assessee

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax payable under section 11SBBE, a sum computed at the rate of ten per cent of the tax payable under clause (i) of sub- section

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

5) TMI 217 held that:- Page 6 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 “where the JCIT has granted sanction by merely recording “Yes I am satisfied”, the same was not sustainable." The SLP filed by the revenue department has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement

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

5) TMI 217 held that:- Page 6 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 “where the JCIT has granted sanction by merely recording “Yes I am satisfied”, the same was not sustainable." The SLP filed by the revenue department has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement

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

5) TMI 217 held that:- Page 6 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 “where the JCIT has granted sanction by merely recording “Yes I am satisfied”, the same was not sustainable." The SLP filed by the revenue department has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement

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

5) TMI 217 held that:- Page 6 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 “where the JCIT has granted sanction by merely recording “Yes I am satisfied”, the same was not sustainable." The SLP filed by the revenue department has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement

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

5) TMI 217 held that:- Page 6 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 “where the JCIT has granted sanction by merely recording “Yes I am satisfied”, the same was not sustainable." The SLP filed by the revenue department has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement

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

section 68 of the Act in respect of loan transactions, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Shri Dinesh Kumar, CA represented the assessee and Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, DR represented the revenue. 5

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, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D, if such income is not covered under the first condition. In the facts of the present appeal, admittedly, assessee has not offered the income under Section 69A of the Act. Even, the Assessing Officer has not made any separate addition under Section 69A of the Act. He has merely re- characterized

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]

5. In the case of Sanjeev Aggarwal Vs. DCIT [2016] 70 taxmann.com 265(Chandigarh-Trib.) the Hon'ble Chandigarh Tribunal has held that where theAssessing Officer passed an order under section 147 read with section 143(3)of the act for making assessment without issuing notice under section 143(2) ofthe Act, it would be invalid

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]

5. In the case of Sanjeev Aggarwal Vs. DCIT [2016] 70 taxmann.com 265(Chandigarh-Trib.) the Hon'ble Chandigarh Tribunal has held that where theAssessing Officer passed an order under section 147 read with section 143(3)of the act for making assessment without issuing notice under section 143(2) ofthe Act, it would be invalid

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]

5. In the case of Sanjeev Aggarwal Vs. DCIT [2016] 70 taxmann.com 265(Chandigarh-Trib.) the Hon'ble Chandigarh Tribunal has held that where theAssessing Officer passed an order under section 147 read with section 143(3)of the act for making assessment without issuing notice under section 143(2) ofthe Act, it would be invalid

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]

5. In the case of Sanjeev Aggarwal Vs. DCIT [2016] 70 taxmann.com 265(Chandigarh-Trib.) the Hon'ble Chandigarh Tribunal has held that where theAssessing Officer passed an order under section 147 read with section 143(3)of the act for making assessment without issuing notice under section 143(2) ofthe Act, it would be invalid