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

65,840/- including Rs. 18,50,000/- made under\nSection 68 of the Act in respect of unexplained cash credit by the\nlearned Assessing Officer.\n03. The facts in brief are that a search action under Section

AJAY KUMAR KESHAN,BETTIAH vs. DC/AC, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 3/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Ajay Kumar Keshan,.……………………………Appellant M/S. Abhijeet Service Station, Sowa Babu Chowk, Lal Bazar Bettiah, West Champaran-845438, Bihar [Pan:Abapk5421A] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner /Assistant Commissioner,......................Respondent Circle-1, Muzaffarpur-842002, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Vineet Jalan, Ca & Shri Rajaram Choudhury, Ca, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 30, 2024 O R D E R

65,000/- under section 68 of the Act mainly on the ground that the assessee was not authorized to accept

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

65,987.00 (F.Y. 2015-16) to ₹ 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

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

section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The ld. Pr. Commissioner has issued a show-cause notice on 02.03.2023 and such notice is available on pages no. 1 to 3 of the paper book, which reads as under:- 3 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Mithilesh Kumar 4 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Mithilesh Kumar 5 Assessment Year: 2021-2022 Mithilesh Kumar

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

68 read with section 115BBE of the Act and assessed the same under the Act. I.T.A. No.: 321/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Zaimur Rahman. 11. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer, without giving any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, has erred in holding that Rs.11,43,600 shown

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

BALKRISHNA BHALOTIA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMUI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

68,330/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee on 23.09.2019. It is pertinent to observe that a survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 14.09.2017. 2 Assessment

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

65,920/- pertaining to M/s. Subh Commodities Pvt. Ltd. and loss amounting to ₹30,24,457/- in respect of M/s. Marina Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. should not be treated as manipulative/fictitious loss and disallowed accordingly. Reference was also made to the NMCE, Ahmedabad calling for trade ledger of the assessee company and on analysing the trade ledger received from the NMCE

RANJEET SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 5 (5), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

65 taxmann.com 137] submitted that Hon’ble High Court held that merely because assessee participated in proceedings pursuant to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, it would not obviate mandatory requirement of Assessing Officer to issue notice u/s. 143(2) before finalizing the assessment. However relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case

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

65,09,996.", "held": "The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide necessary bills, vouchers, and other supporting documents to substantiate the expenses claimed. The AO was justified in rejecting the books of account and making an estimate. However, the Tribunal found the estimated net profit rate of 2% to be on the higher side.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections

LOVELY RANI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, PATNA

65,791\n2007-08\n130,03,13,307\n2008-09\n274,68,87,069\n2009-10\n301,17,05,952\nYOU ARE REQUESTED TO SERVE THESE ORDERS EXPEDITIOUSLY ON THE\nASSESSEE, SUBMIT A COPY OF FINAL ORDER TO THIS OFFICE FOR RECORD.\nSD/-\nADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME\nTAX, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR\n22. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY LEARNED COUNSEL

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/-“

section 44AD of the Act, ld. CIT(A) by accepting the said claim, recomputed the calculations made by the ld. AO by taking net profit rate of 8% which comes to Rs.1,37,100/-. Total income was thus re-computed by ld. CIT(A) by including interest income of Rs.3,68,871/- at Rs.5,05,971/-. 3 Sudhir Kumar

DCIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, PATNA vs. M/S DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

65-67/Pat/2020 M/s Deo Mangal Memorial Trust (i) College Fee – Rs. 12,83,05,000.00 (ii) Hospital receipts – Rs. 2,70,33,405.96 (iii) Hostel receipts – Rs. 1,63,86,667.00 (iv) Pharmacy receipts – Rs. 35,09,829.00 (v) Other receipts – Rs. 12,24,776.25 Furthermore, the Ld. AO found that the receipts from pharmacy exceeded the tolerance limit

DCIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, PATNA vs. M/S DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

65-67/Pat/2020 M/s Deo Mangal Memorial Trust (i) College Fee – Rs. 12,83,05,000.00 (ii) Hospital receipts – Rs. 2,70,33,405.96 (iii) Hostel receipts – Rs. 1,63,86,667.00 (iv) Pharmacy receipts – Rs. 35,09,829.00 (v) Other receipts – Rs. 12,24,776.25 Furthermore, the Ld. AO found that the receipts from pharmacy exceeded the tolerance limit

DCIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, PATNA vs. M/S DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

65-67/Pat/2020 M/s Deo Mangal Memorial Trust (i) College Fee – Rs. 12,83,05,000.00 (ii) Hospital receipts – Rs. 2,70,33,405.96 (iii) Hostel receipts – Rs. 1,63,86,667.00 (iv) Pharmacy receipts – Rs. 35,09,829.00 (v) Other receipts – Rs. 12,24,776.25 Furthermore, the Ld. AO found that the receipts from pharmacy exceeded the tolerance limit

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

65,000/-. Under these background fact, the total\nwithdrawal has been taken at Rs. 1,00,000/- (35,000+65000) against\nwhich the proof of expenses of approx. Rs. 67,000/- was available on\naccount of payment to LIC/ULIP. Therefore, balance Rs. 33,000/-\n(1,00,000-67,000) was left for personal expenses spread over 12 month.\nMeaning

AMIT KUMAR,BEGUSARAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 143(3) r.w. 144 of the Income tax Act, 1961, ('the Act') at an income of Rs 3,74,76,426/- as against returned income of Rs 10,16,880/- ITA No.: 410/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Amit Kumar. 2. For that the learned has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case in arbitrarily confirming addition

SAROJ BALA,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA

In the result, ITA Nos.233-235/PAT/2024, ITA Nos

68 and 69 of the paper\nbook which contains information obtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar\nfrom Central Public Information Officer who is none other than the\nId. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range-S, New Delhi,\nunder Right to Information Act, wherein, it reveals that the Id. Addl.\nCIT had granted approval for 43 cases on 30.12.2018 itself. This

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

68 (Bom) and (1984) 31 ITD 52 (SB-Delhi) holding that in an assessment made u/s 143(3) it should be presumed that the assessment u/s 143(3) had been made after proper application of mind and also holding that the assessee has no control over the way, the assessment is drafted by the AO and generally issues which