FARIDI FOUNDATION,ARRAH vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PATNA

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

68, 22, 353, 242 and so\nmany others like these. All the sums claimed to have been taken in cash.\nGoing through the list it appears the name \"Muhammad Jugnu Khan\" with\nPage | 4\nΙ.Τ.Α. No.: 223/PAT/2023\n Assessment Year: 2023-24\nFaridi Foundation.\nsame address and mobile number and sum of Rs.193/-, Rs.60/- & Rs.91/-\nclaimed to have

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ITO, WARD-1(EXEMPTION), PATNA vs. AISHWARYA FOUNDATION, PATNA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 103/Pat/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Aishwarya Foundation, Patna Exemption Vs 46, Patliputra Colony Near Sahyog Hospital Patliputra Colony Patna - 800013 [Pan: Aacta0834A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Patna, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 10/09/2020, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue Raised By The Department Before Us In The Instant Lis Relates To The Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.2,61,72,000/- By The Ld. Cit(A) Made By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 30/12/2016 On Account Of Alleged Anonymous Donations Made U/S 115Bbc Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Trust Is A Charitable Organization Registered U/S 12Aa Of Act. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 24/06/2015 Declaring Total Income At ‘Nil’. Case Of Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass Followed By Issuance Of Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted From The Income & Expenditure Account That The Assessee Had Shown Income At Rs.2,61,72,000/- Which Was Received As Donation & Incurred Expenses To The Tune Of Rs.2,22,47,910/- Which Resulted In Income Over Expenditure At

vi) or any hospital or other institution referred to in sub- clause (iiiae) or subclause (via) or any fund or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or any trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (v) of clause (23 C) of section 10 or any trust or institution referred to in section 11, includes any income

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 vs. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WELFARE HUMAN RESOURCES,

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed while the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

9 I.T.A. No. 119/PAT/2011 & C.O. No.1/PAT/2012 International School of Social Welfare & Human Resources: AY: 2006-06 activities which can not be termed as educational activities, such as providing transport facilities and others. From the perusal of the balance sheet, it is also seen that the assessee has given advance to land lord of Rs.16,68

DINESH PRASAD,GAYA vs. ITO, WRD- 3 (1), GAYA

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

68 amounting to Rs.53,52,000/- is contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Act. 7. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in affirming the invocation of section 115BBE in respect of addition of Rs.53,52,000/- despite the fact that the source of deposit stands fully explained to have come out of business transaction