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

58,62,495.00 at the end of F.Y. 2016-17 and treated the whole amount as bogus Sundry Creditors to the total Income of the assessee under section 68

SANOJ KUMAR SINGH ,HAJIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3) , VAISHALI

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer computed the disallowance merely on an estimation basis, the As- sessing Officer noted that total turnover/sales of the assessee during the year were Rs. 5,07,59,673/- out of which the assessee has deposited cash to the tune

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

58,760/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee declared agricultural income at Rs.39,45,200/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 22.09.2019 and served upon the assessee within statutory period. The case was transferred

RAJBANSH RAM,BHABUA vs. ITO WARD- 3(5), SASARAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 68 of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. Before us, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the total deposits in the bank account were Rs. 11,58

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

58,04,004/- minus Rs.6,47,49,004/-) which was not shown as unsecured loan from GEMS, was added to the total income of the assessee. The ESL not responded to the notice issued under section 133(6) on 04.12.2018, therefore, the unsecured loan against the name of ESL as appearing in the books of account of the assessee

DINESH PRASAD,GAYA vs. ITO, WRD- 3 (1), GAYA

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 amounting to Rs.53,52,000/- is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Act. 7. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in affirming the invocation of section 115BBE in respect of addition of Rs.53,52,000/- despite the fact that the source of deposit stands fully explained to have come out of business transaction

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

58:50 PM SELL 10 113.20 5000 5660000.00 2 ZINC FUTURES 21/03/201103:59:16 PM SELL 11 113.20 5000 6226000.00 13 ZINC FUTURES 21/03/2011 03:59:55 PM SELL 5 113.20 5000 2830000.00 1 ZINC FUTURES 21/03/201104:00:15 PM SELL 5 113.20 5000 2830000.00 1 ZINC FUTURES 21/03/201104:01:03 PM SELL 5 113.20 5000 2830000.00 1 ZINC FUTURES

M/S GUPTESHWARAM RICE MILL PVT LTD,KAIMUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, GAYA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.199/Pat/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2003-04)

Section 68 unexplained unsecured loan addition of Rs. 4,69,886/- made in both the learned lower authorities’ respective orders that this taxpayer had failed to prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the credit parties, we find no merit to sustain the same since the same has come from the assessee’s four directors namely Avinash Tiwary, Shashi Nath

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

68,523.18 and Rs. 13,93,625.00 without charging any interest. The landlord is the Director of the society Smt. Farhat Hasan. This leads to the benefit to the person referred to in section 13(3) and these investments are not allowable investment as per provision of section 11(5) of the I. T. Act which

SUDHIR KUMAR,PATNA vs. I.T.O., PATNA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sudhir Kumar, Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Vs. Patna. Patna. (Pan: Amlpk4871E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri K. M. Mishra, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.05.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Dhanbad, Camp Office At Patna Appeal No. 71/Cit(A)-Ii/13-14 Dated 25.02.2014 For A.Y. 2010-11 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Ito, Ward-6(1), Patna, Dated 26.03.2013. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 18.10.2010 Reporting Total Income Of Rs.3,01,260/-. In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ld. Ao Sought Details On Various Aspects Of The Income Reported By The Assessee & Completed The Assessment By Making The Additions As Under: “Total Income As Per Return Rs. 3,01,260/- Add: As Discussed In Para D Rs. 3,42,708/- Add: As Discussed In Para E Rs. 14,03,744/- Add: As Discussed In Para F Rs. 58,92,354/- Total Income Rs. 89,40,066/-“

58,92,354/- Total Income Rs. 89,40,066/-“ 2 Sudhir Kumar A.Y. 2010-11 2.1. Assessee went into appeal before the ld. CIT(A) challenging the additions so made, who gave relief on certain additions and the appeal was partly allowed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal in respect of additions sustained

JAINAM ORNAMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,GAYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GAYA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Jainam Ornament Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Chowk, Gaya, Gaya, Gaya, Bihar Vs. Bihar-823001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcj2187M Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

58,315/- on 08.11.2016 of ₹53,40,281/-, which was cash sales on 21.10.2016, and the same was deemed as unexplained cash credit and added to the income of the assessee by rejecting the books of accounts. Jainam Ornament Private Limited; A.Y. 2017-18 4. The ld. CIT (A) in the appellate proceedings, confirmed the addition made

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BHOLA RAM PAPERS & POWERS PRIVATE LIMITED, ARRAH

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

section 147 is applicable to the facts of this case, before successfully re-opening the assessment, the AO has to satisfy two conditions precedent, that is firstly the AO has to satisfy the basic essential condition precedent to re-open an assessment ‘reason to believe, escapement of income’ by recording his satisfaction in which he should spell

FARIDI FOUNDATION,ARRAH vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PATNA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraι.Τ.Α. No.: 223/Pat/2023

section 12AB(1)(b) of the Act. The applicant is a Trust. The address of the Trust is Waliganj, Arrah. The Ld. CIT (Exemption) issued a letter dated 20.12.2022 requiring the assessee to Page | 3 Ι.Τ.Α. No.: 223/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Faridi Foundation. submit the documents related to notes on activities undertaken by the applicant during

MOHAMMAD SAIDULLAH,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (3), MOTIHARI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

58,260/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued which were duly served upon the assessee. The assessee had shown agricultural income of ₹1,23,255/- which was added by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') to the returned income of the assessee

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

58 days. An application along with the affidavit seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: “The NFAC has passed order u/s 250 dated 16/07/2024. There was no communication of uploading of this order either on the registered email or registered mobile no. of the appellant. It has only recently that the appellant came