RAJ CONSTRUCTION,KATIHAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHAGALPUR

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Shri Dr. Manish Borad, Am Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raj Construction Circle – 1(1), C/O Mahadev Ghosh, Bhagalpur, Advocate Vs. Bf-199, Salt Lake City, R.N. Plaza, R.B.S.S Kolkata-700064 Sahay Road, Bhagalpur, Bihar- 812001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajfr6306F Assessee By : Shri Mahadev Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2024

71,018/- for unexplained sundry creditors under Section 68 of the Act. We note that the assessee is a partnership

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

71,11,489/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer has issued questionnaires under section 142(1) on 13.06.2011. A perusal of the finding of ld. Assessing Officer on page 2 of the impugned order would reveal

CHUNNI LAL RAMESHWAR LAL,STATION ROAD SUPAUL vs. ITO WARD 3(5)SAHARSA, SAHARSA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

71,609/- demanded on the basis of unlawful addition of Rs. 27110655/- by estimation of profit and addition under section 68

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

68 of the Act, which is stated to be fit to be reversed on the ground that no valid show cause notice as mandated in section 251(2) of the Act was I.T.A. No.: 351/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajbansh Ram. issued by the NFAC. Further, the entire transactions and the source of the bank deposits not being

JITENDRA SINGH,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

71,714/- and Rs. 8,041/- respectively. 6. For that the humble appellant craves for the leave of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) to take, raise, press plead and/or argue any other ground or grounds as may be necessary hereinafter.” 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 310days on the part

PRERNA AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

71,33,000/- in his bank account maintained with HDFC. On being asked to explain the source of the said cash deposit it was informed to the Ld. AO that the deposits represented opening cash balance (as on 01.04.2016) and cash withdrawals made from time to time. The Ld. AO has depicted in tabular form at pages

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

68 by providing identity, genuineness of transactions\nand creditworthiness of the creditors. The assessee failed to submit any of\nthe above during the scrutiny proceedings. Due to the failure of the assessee\nto prove that the entries made in the books of account are genuine and\nreliable, the show cause notice was issued by recording the satisfaction for\nrejection

SITARAM SULTANIA,PATNA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIR-6, PATNA, PATNA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

71,630/- and offered the same to tax in the return of income. On the request of the assessee, the AO referred the matter to DVO and the DVO valued the property under Section 50C(2) of the Act at Rs. 86,72,000/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer computed the short-term capital gain