PUNRASAR JUTE PARK LIMITED,PURNEA vs. CIT, PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 of the Act for alleged unexplained cash credit. 6. The assessee challenged the reopening being bad in law and illegal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) stating that all the information relating to the alleged cash credits have been examined by the ld. Assessing Officer in the proceeding under section 143(3) of the Act and there being

BIRJU KUMAR,VAISHALI vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (3), VAISHALI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

80,700/- on account of alleged unexplained cash deposited in the bank account under section 68 of the Act, which

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

68,919/-. The Revenue is aggrieved with this exercise and emphasized that ld. Assessing Officer has made specific disallowances under sections 40A(3) and 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. A perusal of the assessment order would indicate that to some extent, the exercise adopted by the ld. Assessing Officer is justifiable because the assessee failed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S MAXXON VANIJYA & RESOURCES PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the order of the Ld

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 10.] Further, the Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT Vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272 held that insertion of above proviso is prospective in nature and not retrospective. Therefore, taking into account assessment years under appeal (as this A.Y. is prior to A.Y. 2013-14) and all other facts as discussed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. SONAMOTI AGROTECH PVT LTD, PATNA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

68 was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 wherein the onus of proving identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditor to the satisfaction of the AO 13 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & C.O. No. 04/PAT/2022 (in ITA No. 110/PAT/2019) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Sonamoti Agrotech Pvt. Limited has entirely shifted to the assessee. In this regard the relevant proviso

GYASUDDIN MOHAMMAD ANSARI,PURNIA vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (3), PURNEA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 80 E had been wrongly claimed. In fact, the assessee had sold a commercial is of land and furnish the working of capital loss of ₹ 240,000 and relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of gets a (India) Ltd vs CIT. The AO did not accept the contention of the assessee

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

80 Taxman 89 (SC)/[1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC)/[1995] 125 CTR 124 (SC)[28-03-1995] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “It is, no doubt, true that in all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies on the department to prove that it is within the taxing

SANGAM ALMIRAH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUZAFFARPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

80,091/- (i.e. Rs.2,32,236/- towards PF and Rs.1,47,855/- towards ESI) belonging to the proprietorship is charged to the company. In view of this fact, the AO had disallowed the aforesaid amount of Rs.3.80.001/- for the year under consideration and added it to the total income of the assessee-company, 5.2. Further, during the appellate proceedings

ARANYA CLEARERS,GAYA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), GAYA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

80,629.86, whereas the assessee has shown receipt of Rs.5,68,27,840/-. There was a difference of Rs.7,52,789/-. This difference has been added in the total income of the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that since it was an ex-parte assessment order, therefore, efforts to reconcile the above could not be achieved. He prayed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. PROMINENT FINANCIAL ADVISORY PVT LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.99/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle -1 Piyush & Associates Private Ltd. Patna, 6Th Floor, C.R. (Annexee) Vs Pirmohani, Kadamkuan, Patna, Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Bihar-800003 Patna-800001 [Pan : Aadcp3041N] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

section. This group was subjected to search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act ITA Nos.78,79,80,99,102,103/Pat/2021 conducted on 15th March, 2018. On account of search, assessment proceeding for preceding six assessment years were initiated by way of issuing valid notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act after the assessee

PIYUSH & ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.99/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle -1 Piyush & Associates Private Ltd. Patna, 6Th Floor, C.R. (Annexee) Vs Pirmohani, Kadamkuan, Patna, Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Bihar-800003 Patna-800001 [Pan : Aadcp3041N] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

section. This group was subjected to search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act ITA Nos.78,79,80,99,102,103/Pat/2021 conducted on 15th March, 2018. On account of search, assessment proceeding for preceding six assessment years were initiated by way of issuing valid notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act after the assessee

PROMINENT FINANCIAL ADVISORY PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.99/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle -1 Piyush & Associates Private Ltd. Patna, 6Th Floor, C.R. (Annexee) Vs Pirmohani, Kadamkuan, Patna, Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Bihar-800003 Patna-800001 [Pan : Aadcp3041N] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

section. This group was subjected to search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act ITA Nos.78,79,80,99,102,103/Pat/2021 conducted on 15th March, 2018. On account of search, assessment proceeding for preceding six assessment years were initiated by way of issuing valid notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act after the assessee

PROMINENT FINANCIAL ADVISORY PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.99/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle -1 Piyush & Associates Private Ltd. Patna, 6Th Floor, C.R. (Annexee) Vs Pirmohani, Kadamkuan, Patna, Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Bihar-800003 Patna-800001 [Pan : Aadcp3041N] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

section. This group was subjected to search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act ITA Nos.78,79,80,99,102,103/Pat/2021 conducted on 15th March, 2018. On account of search, assessment proceeding for preceding six assessment years were initiated by way of issuing valid notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act after the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. PIYUSH & ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.99/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle -1 Piyush & Associates Private Ltd. Patna, 6Th Floor, C.R. (Annexee) Vs Pirmohani, Kadamkuan, Patna, Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Bihar-800003 Patna-800001 [Pan : Aadcp3041N] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

section. This group was subjected to search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act ITA Nos.78,79,80,99,102,103/Pat/2021 conducted on 15th March, 2018. On account of search, assessment proceeding for preceding six assessment years were initiated by way of issuing valid notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act after the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. PROMINENT FINANCIAL ADVISORY PVT LTD, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.99/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle -1 Piyush & Associates Private Ltd. Patna, 6Th Floor, C.R. (Annexee) Vs Pirmohani, Kadamkuan, Patna, Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Bihar-800003 Patna-800001 [Pan : Aadcp3041N] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

section. This group was subjected to search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act ITA Nos.78,79,80,99,102,103/Pat/2021 conducted on 15th March, 2018. On account of search, assessment proceeding for preceding six assessment years were initiated by way of issuing valid notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act after the assessee

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.233, 234 & 235/Pat/2024 &

80,016 2005-06 65,70,12,805 2006-07 60,02,65,791 2007-08 130,03,13,307 2008-09 274,68,87,069 2009-10 301,17,05,952 YOU ARE REQUESTED TO SERVE THESE ORDERS EXPEDITIOUSLY ON THE ASSESSEE, SUBMIT A COPY OF FINAL ORDER TO THIS OFFICE FOR RECORD. SD/- ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

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

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 and by stating so the representative of the assessee has argued that the total income disclosed by the assessee is equal to 15.75% of the total receipt of Rs. 20,82,626/-. The return of income and the computation sheet enclosed with the paper book and placed as page…… to …… of P.B. established this fact. The assessing

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

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.233, 234 & 235/Pat/2024 &

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