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 to 69D read with Section 115BBE, by colouring the "deemed incomes" as business income. More so, in cases of unaccounted cash and undisclosed investment/expenditure in purchases, and excess stock assessable under section 69A/69B/69C of the Act. 3.2.1. At the outset, all the decisions quoted and relied upon by the assessee, with regard to non-applicability of Section

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]

68,566/- to the income of the assessee in assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2016 on the basis that according to rent controller order , the revised rent is effective from 27.07.2012. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of AO. 5. After hearing

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]

68,566/- to the income of the assessee in assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2016 on the basis that according to rent controller order , the revised rent is effective from 27.07.2012. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of AO. 5. After hearing

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]

68,566/- to the income of the assessee in assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2016 on the basis that according to rent controller order , the revised rent is effective from 27.07.2012. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of AO. 5. After hearing

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]

68,566/- to the income of the assessee in assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2016 on the basis that according to rent controller order , the revised rent is effective from 27.07.2012. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of AO. 5. After hearing

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]

68,566/- to the income of the assessee in assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 31.03.2016 on the basis that according to rent controller order , the revised rent is effective from 27.07.2012. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of AO. 5. After hearing

ANIL KUMAR SAH,BANKA vs. ITO, WD-1(4), BHAGALPUR, BHAGALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 324/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Anil Kumar Sah,………………………....….………Appellant Near Bari Durga Mandir, Kajreli Road, Amarpur, Dist. Banka-813101, Bihar [Pan:Aqgps8735A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-1(4), Bhagalpur, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, R.N. Plaza, R B S S Road, Bhagalpur-812001, Bihar Appearances By: 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: June 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 29, 2025 O R D E R

70,705/- under section 68, (i.e. Rs.13,63,773/- plus Rs.2,06,932/-) and addition made for undisclosed Bank

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

70,000/- Satyendra Sharma 26-03-2009 Dena-285 975985 96,000/- Subhash Kumar 31-05-2008 PNB-9926 821336 1,50,000/- Subhash Kumar 08-09-2008 PNB-9926 797767 5,00,000/- Subodh Kumar 08-07-2008 SBI-347 735727 6,1 1,600/- Vinod Chandra 14-07-2008 Dena-285 975914 1,47,000/- Vinod Kumar

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

68 "it was necessary for the assessee to prove prima facie the Page 8 of 19 I.T.A. No.: 304/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjeet Singh. identity of creditors, the capacity of such creditors and lastly the genuineness of transactions". 8.4 Similarly, in the case of CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal)], it was observed that

ACIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PATNA vs. M/S SHARDA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, PATNA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

68 of the Act. 2.For that the appellant has received the donation through proper banking channel and all the donors are Income Tax assessee. 3. For that the sustenance of addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 4. For that the whole order is bad in fact and law of the case

M/S SHARDA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,PATNA vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD-1, PATNA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

68 of the Act. 2.For that the appellant has received the donation through proper banking channel and all the donors are Income Tax assessee. 3. For that the sustenance of addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 4. For that the whole order is bad in fact and law of the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), GAYA, GAYA vs. PAWAN KUMAR SINGH, ROHTAS

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17 Ito, Ward-3(1), Gaya…………..…………....…….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Pawan Kumar Singh…………..…..………………….....……...…..…..Respondent C/O Vidhayanchal Singh, Tarhangla, Dehri-On-Sone, Bihar – 821307. [Pan: Aqsps7942P] Appearances By: Shri Anuj Ganguli, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 09, 2025 Order Per Madhumita Roy: The Instant Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.01.2025 Passed By Nfac U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

68 of the Act as unexplained income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed by restricting the addition @8% of the total contractual receipts of Rs.2,02,70,371/- which comes to Rs.16,21,630/-. 5. Dissatisfied, the revenue

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

70,12,805\n2006-07\n60,02,65,791\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

LAL BABU PRASAD,SIWAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. On the basis of the submissions made by the assessee, a discrepancy in stock was identified at ₹3,25,06,633. After deducting the opening stock of ₹49,68,567, the net discrepancy was worked out. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee voluntarily declared additional income of ₹70

M/S KUMAR CONSTRUCTION,CHAPRA vs. DCIT, CICLE-2, MUZAFFAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleita Nos.200/Pat/2014 Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Kumar Construction Dcit, Circle-2, Muzaffarpur P.O. Dumri Adda, P.S. Vs. Doriganj, Dist. Chapra. Pan: Aajfm 7295 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Smt. Archana Sharma, Ca Respondent By : Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Captioned Appeals Preferred By The Assessee For The A.Y. 2005-06 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Passed By Osd, Cit(A) Dated 26.06.2014. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Revised Ground Of Appeal For A.Y. 2005-06 As Under: “I. The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Assessed Profit @ 8% Of Total Gross Receipts Amount To Rs. 2,40,85,620/- Amounting To Rs. 19,26,850/- & Added Back To Assessee’S Income While Computation Of Tax. Ii. Capital Introduced By 6 Partner’S Amounting To Rs. 12,20,000/- Has Been Outrightly Rejected By Ao & Added Back To Assessees Income While Computation Of Tax. Iii. The Respondent Have Rejected The Books Of Accounts Invoking The Provision Of Section 145(3) & Rejecting The Books Of Accounts Regularly Maintained & Holding That The Audited Books Of Accounts Were Not Absolutely Reliable. So, We Pray For Consider The Revised Grounds Stated Above & Grant Relief For Assessee’S Income @ 6% Of The Total Receipts Of Rs. 2,40,85,620/-.”

section 145(3) and holding that the audited books of accounts were not absolutely reliable. As such the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and unjustified, moreover, excessive under the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, liable to be set aside. She further submitted that since the assessee is engaged in civil

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)

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 of 20% as per the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. It is seen that there is also

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)

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 of 20% as per the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. It is seen that there is also

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)

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 of 20% as per the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. It is seen that there is also

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