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

ASHOKA TUBEWELL BORING ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

undisclosed income being voluntarily disclosed and accepted by the AO, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained. The return filed under Section 153A is to be treated as a return under Section 139, and concealment must be judged against this return.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "271(1)(c)", "132(1)", "153A", "132(4)", "68

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

undisclosed income under section 68 and added in income of assessee - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld addition - Tribunal having found that Assessing

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

undisclosed income under section 68 and added in income of assessee - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld addition - Tribunal having found that Assessing

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

undisclosed income under section 68 and added in income of assessee - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld addition - Tribunal having found that Assessing

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

undisclosed income under section 68 and added in income of assessee - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld addition - Tribunal having found that Assessing

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

undisclosed income under section 68 and added in income of assessee - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld addition - Tribunal having found that Assessing

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

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

VIJAYA SINGH,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1), PATNA, PATNA, BIHAR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 519/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Vijaya Singh,…………………………...….………Appellant M-55/22A, S.K. Nagar, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Asups6086N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………......Respondent Ward-6(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Jay Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-800001, Bihar

undisclosed income under section 68 of the Income Tax Act and also taxed as per section 115BBE. Ld. Counsel further

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/-“

68,871/- Total 20,82,626/- 6,83,440/- Less income disclosed 3,40,732/- Undisclosed income 3,42,708/- 3. The assessing officer has erred in computing undisclosed income as above. It has been stated in the assessment order that the assessee has not submitted profit and loss account and balance sheet during the course of assessment nor books

SHANKAR CONSTRUCTION,PANCHGACHIA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 565/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Shankar Construction,………………..…….……Appellant Panchgachia, Panchgachia-852124, Bihar [Pan:Abofs0800R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….……..……Respondent Ward-3(1), Purnea, Bihar Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashok Kumar, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 18, 2024 O R D E R

income and it does not have any activity to support the huge loans and advances, it has forwarded to various entities. 11 Shankar Construction It was also proved beyond doubt that the assessee company's source of found of making huge loans is also from bogus Kolkata based shell companies. Hence, the loan received by M/s Shankar construction

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

68,87,069\n2009-10\n301,17,05,952\nYOU ARE REQUESTED TO SERVE THESE ORDERS EXPEDITIOUSLY ON THE\nASSESSEE, SUBMIT A COPY OF FINAL ORDER TO THIS OFFICE FOR RECORD.\nSD/-\nADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME\nTAX, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR\n22. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THERE\nIS NOT EVEN A TOKEN MENTION

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.

68 read with section 115BBE of the Act and assessed the same under the Act. 10. For that the Id. assessing officer has grossly erred in holding the entire cash deposits as undisclosed income

ANIL KUMAR,CHAPRA SARAN vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, CHHAPRA

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

68,850/-. Admittedly, this order was an\nexparte order since the assessee did not make any presentation of facts\nbefore the Ld. AO.\n1.2 Aggrieved with the action of Ld. AO, the assessee approached the Ld.\nCIT(A), where also he could not succeed because some new evidence that\nhe filed at that stage were not admitted for adjudication since

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 PATNA, PATNA vs. LOVELY RANI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD , PATNA

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

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

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

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

MURLIDHAR PRASAD,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA

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