ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S CONTESSA COMMERCIAL CO. PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

68 on account of unexplained credit. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 04.11.2017 declaring total income ‘NIL’ and current year loss of Rs.60,00,834/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued on 14.08.2018 fixing

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, ld. Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.2,00,04,931/- in A.Y. 2016-17. In A.Y. 2017-18, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has observed that the assessee-company has taken a loan of Rs.1,06,02,895/- from M/s. Trailblazer Edusol (P) Limited and concurring his view with regard

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA vs. BROADSON COMMODITIES PVT LTD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed

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

68 of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, ld. Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.2,00,04,931/- in A.Y. 2016-17. In A.Y. 2017-18, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has observed that the assessee-company has taken a loan of Rs.1,06,02,895/- from M/s. Trailblazer Edusol (P) Limited and concurring his view with regard

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

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 provision

ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRABHAT,ARRAH vs. PCIT-1, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

89,460/- and the assessment order u/s 147/144 read with Section 144B of the Act was passed on 27.02.2023 and the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 12,03,513/- after making addition of Rs. 8,14,053/- u/s 68

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), PATNA vs. MUNNI RAI, PATNA

Bench: Itat.

68 of the Act was uncalled for and therefore, rightly directed to be deleted. The Ld. AR also argued on the legality of the action of Ld. CIT(A) in adjudicating on the issue of addition of Rs. 3,44,45,828/- even though it did not arise from the Ld. AO’s order dated 25.02.2016, in as much

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

89,000-25,000). In\nview of the above discussion, the addition of Rs. 64,000/- only can be\nsustained for A.Y. 2001-02. In absence of any evidence from the appellant\nto the contrary, I direct the A.O to restrict the disallowance of Rs. 64,000/-\non account of low withdrawal for A.Y. 2001-02. The ground is partly

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/-“

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 by the ld. CIT(A). Assessee has taken as many

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

BIHAR STATE EDUCATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

89 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee for condoning the delay stating as follows: “1. That this is an application for condonation of delay in filing of the instant Appeal. 2. That the Appellant states that the order of Assessment was passed on dated 27.07.2018. The Appellant states that the said order

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

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

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

89,000/- (33,000+56,000). The appellant\nhas disclosed withdrawal of Rs. 25,000/-. Taking a consistent view, the\nAO should have at best made addition of Rs. 64,000/- (89,000-25,000). In\nview of the above discussion, the addition of Rs. 64,000/- only can be\nsustained for A.Y. 2001-02. In absence of any evidence