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

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

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

56,405/- paid directly 0c$& the supplier, the remand report of the A.O. does not comment about the payment made in excess of Rs.20,000/-. The A.O. has mentioned in the remand report that no bills was produced for payment made to various persons for daily expenditure. (iii) As regards the disallowance of expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) the remand

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:

1. That the order of the Ld. Assessing Officer as well as the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is bad in law and on fact. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.6,00,000 under Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act read

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

1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. 15. For that the ld. assessing officer has erred in initiating penalty proceeding under Section 271F of the Act for non filing of ITR. 16. For that the ld. assessing officer has erred in not providing the appellant the reason recorded for initiation of reassessment proceeding under 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

56,550/- treating the Long-term Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed by the assessee as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. Being aggrieved by the said action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide impugned order dated 28.02.2023. The assessee, thus

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

56,550/- treating the Long-term Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed by the assessee as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. Being aggrieved by the said action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide impugned order dated 28.02.2023. The assessee, thus

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

56,550/- treating the Long-term Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed by the assessee as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. Being aggrieved by the said action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide impugned order dated 28.02.2023. The assessee, thus

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

56,550/- treating the Long-term Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed by the assessee as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. Being aggrieved by the said action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide impugned order dated 28.02.2023. The assessee, thus

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

56,550/- treating the Long-term Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed by the assessee as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. Being aggrieved by the said action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide impugned order dated 28.02.2023. The assessee, thus

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

56 PM BUY 1 114.85 5000 574250.00 0 ZINC FUTURES 21/03/2011 04:06:09 PM BUY 1 115.40 5000 577000.00 0 I.T.A. No.: 108/PAT/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Sun Comtech Pvt. Ltd. ZINC FUTURES 21/03/2011 04:06:55 PM BUY 8 115.45 5000 4618000.00 6 NICKEL FUTURES 16/03/2011 01:17:26 PM SELL 1 113.20 5000 566000.00 3 NICKEL

ACIT vs. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WELFARE HUMAN RESOURCES,

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed while the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1 crore during the AY. 2005-06. It is, therefore, not entitled to the claim of exemption u/s 10(23C) of the Act. 2. The assessee-Society has given interest free loans of Rs. 13,93,625/- and Rs. 16,68,523/- as 'Advance to Landlord'. At the same time, the Society has paid Rs. 18,00,000/- as rent

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

56,000/- approx. The AO has\nallowed personal expenses to the appellant @2750/- per month i.e.\n33,000/- per annum for A.Y. 2002-03 which appears to be quite\nreasonable and therefore taking a consistent view, the total withdrawal\nshould have been pegged at Rs. 89,000/- (33,000+56,000). The appellant\nhas disclosed withdrawal

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

68 of the Act and taxed the same by invoking the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act @ 60% during demonetization period for assessment year 2017- 18. 3. So far as the assessment year 2016-17 is concerned, on perusal of Bank statement of the assessee, the ld. Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has deposited cash as well