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 115BBE, relate

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, PATNA, PATNA vs. SMT. SIPRA GUPTA, PATNA

loss account and income has been offered to tax. The Id\nAO accepted the sales however he AO added the cash on the ground\nthat assessee has not produced any documentary evidences and\ntherefore, addition was made u/s 68 of the Act.\n4.2. The learned CIT (A) in the appellate proceedings allowed the\nappeal of the assessee again passing

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 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) allowing

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 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) allowing

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 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) allowing

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 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) allowing

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 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) allowing

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 no fresh

SANOJ KUMAR SINGH ,HAJIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3) , VAISHALI

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

Loss Account. Therefore, if the addition is al- lowed to be made under Section 68 of the Act in respect of cash deposits during demonetization period as made by the Assessing Officer, then the same would result into double taxation because the same income has already been offered tax by filing return of income. The Assessing Officer has not disputed

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

68,523/- as 'Advance to Landlord'. At the same time, the Society has paid Rs. 18,00,000/- as rent (to the landlords). The landlords in question are also the members of the Society or their family members. Thus, the assessee -Society is directly passing the benefits to its members. The Society is, therefore, not existing solely for education

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

loss of Rs. 3,89,460/- 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 of the Act. On going through the order

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

section 68, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory

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

Loss Account under Direct Expenses Head and TDS has not been deducted on aforementioned amount. ” 15. As per Sec. 40(a)(ia), if any rent is liable for tax deduction u/s 1941 and tax has not been deducted, the expense is not allowable. Therefore, Rs. 1,43,10,424/- is disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) and added back

KRISHNA MOHAN ,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14, PATNA , PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Krishna Mohan Prop-M/S Maa Ambey Traders, Acit, Circle-14, Patna Maurari Complex, Karbigahiya, Patna, Bihar Vs. Patna-800001, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahupm5205C Assessee By : Shri Manish Rastogi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Md. Ah Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2025

loss account and secondly, by way of making this addition which is not permissible under the Act. 2.4. Besides, addition was made by the learned AO u/s 69A of the Act which is not correct section under which this addition could not be made. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal

PIONEER EDUCATION SOCIETY,HARYANA vs. ITO, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 405/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Pioneer Education Society,……….…….....……Appellant C-310/311, Unitech Business Zone Nirvana Country, South City-Ii, Sector-50, Haryana, Pin Code No.122018 [Pan:Aadap0174C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………….Respondent Ward-1(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, New Dak Bunglow, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Yatin Sharma, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Rinku Singh, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 24, 2025 O R D E R

loss of Rs.5,69,03,769/-. The assessee- Society was running three schools, i.e. GEMS Public School in different places situated at Bhopal, Gwalior and Indore. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS for the reasons, i.e. (i) whether deduction claimed on account of business expenses is admissible or not and (ii) whether sundry creditors

MANOJ KUMAR DAS,BEGUSARAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: 19/07/2025. The Appeal Is Delayed By Around 37 Days. 4. That The Assessee States That The Reason For Delay Is That The Assessee Is Suffering From Hiv Aids & Is Constantly Under Treatment. Copy Of Medical Treatment Is Enclosed.

loss and injury. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to consider the submissions as made in the foregoing paragraphs and further be pleased to condone delay, if any, in the filing of the instant appeal.” 1.1 Considering the reasons given in the said petition, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal

WASEEM ALAM,WEST CHAMPARAN vs. ITO, NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.17/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Waseem Alam…...………………….....…..…………………....Appellant Bhawanipur Kursi Barawa, Sikta, West Champaran, Bihar-845307. [Pan: Alopa0369B] Vs. Ito, Nfac, Delhi…………..……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 22, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.11.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,68,550. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under The E- Assessment Scheme, With The Specific Issue Of Verification Of Large Deduction Claimed Under Section 57 Of The Act. Notice Under Section 143(2) & Subsequently Under Section 142(1) Was Issued To The Assessee. Although The Assessee Uploaded Certain Documents Electronically In Response, The Details Were Found To Be Incomplete. The

68,234 under various heads: Rs.30,00,000 from contract work, Rs.182000/- from dairy income, Rs.16,33,540 from transport income, Rs.16,50,000 from hostel rent and the assessee had claimed expenses of Rs.58,83,717 under Section 57 of the Act and offered the net income of Rs.5,84,517 under the head "Income from Other Sources

BAJRANG CONSTRUCTION,GOPALGANJ vs. DCIT, MUZAFFARPUR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

loss accounts. The assessee has shown net profit of Rs.7,75,185/- before salary and interest to partners and firm tax which comes to 2% of the gross contract receipt of Rs.3,87,09,872/-. The assessee was asked to furnish relevant details, but in spite of that, the assessee failed to produce bills/vouchers. There were many cash payments

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

set aside any addition for verification by the Assessing Officer and hence the restoration of addition for verification by the Assessing Officer is colorable exercise of power and contrary to the mandate of law. 9. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.8,00,000/- out of total addition