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

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)

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 the sales and not even rejected the books of accounts. Therefore

SHREEPUNJ CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,BEGUSARAI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), BEGUSARAI

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

unexplained and an addition to that extent was made by him to the total income of the assessee under section 68 of the Act in the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated 19.12.2017. 3. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the said addition made by the Assessing Officer observing that the onus lay upon

SAWITA SHAH,PURNIA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNIA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrasawita Shah, Income Tax Officer, W/O Kamal Kishor Gupta Sudi Ward 3(1), Purnia Tola, Ansari Thakur Tola, Vs Dalmapur, Baisi, Purnia, Bihar - 854315 (Pan: Gnzps0882J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

invested in the business of CSP to smooth flow of the business, under section 68 previous year savings treated as unexplained

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

investment - Revenue argued that Tribunal ignored findings indicating sham transactions by company and failed to consider disproportionate increase in share prices - In contrary assessee contended that SEBI's investigation did not implicate them and that all condition for claiming LTCG exemption under section I 0(38) were met, including transaction through stock exchange, payment via banking channels, and payment

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

investment - Revenue argued that Tribunal ignored findings indicating sham transactions by company and failed to consider disproportionate increase in share prices - In contrary assessee contended that SEBI's investigation did not implicate them and that all condition for claiming LTCG exemption under section I 0(38) were met, including transaction through stock exchange, payment via banking channels, and payment

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

investment - Revenue argued that Tribunal ignored findings indicating sham transactions by company and failed to consider disproportionate increase in share prices - In contrary assessee contended that SEBI's investigation did not implicate them and that all condition for claiming LTCG exemption under section I 0(38) were met, including transaction through stock exchange, payment via banking channels, and payment

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

investment - Revenue argued that Tribunal ignored findings indicating sham transactions by company and failed to consider disproportionate increase in share prices - In contrary assessee contended that SEBI's investigation did not implicate them and that all condition for claiming LTCG exemption under section I 0(38) were met, including transaction through stock exchange, payment via banking channels, and payment

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

investment - Revenue argued that Tribunal ignored findings indicating sham transactions by company and failed to consider disproportionate increase in share prices - In contrary assessee contended that SEBI's investigation did not implicate them and that all condition for claiming LTCG exemption under section I 0(38) were met, including transaction through stock exchange, payment via banking channels, and payment

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

Investment in NSC on suspicion and surmises without giving proper\nopportunity of being heard.\nFor that the Ld. A.O. has similarly erred in disallowing deduction under section 80TTA\nat Rs.263 whereas in fact he has accepted the bank interest as income from other\nSources.\nFor that the charming of interest under section 234A is bad in law as original return

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

unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act, at the second appellate stage, a new dimension cannot be given to the disputed issue by converting the addition from section 68

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.

unexplained investment in purchase of property credited from undisclosed sources u/s 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act and assessed

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. SHREE NANAK FERRO ALLOYS PVT LTD, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Shree Nanak Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-2 Room No.205, 2Nd Floor, Avrtar Acit, Circle-2, Patna, Bihar Vs. Building, Bisturpur, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics1706N Assessee By : S/Shri A.K. Rastogi Rakesh Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Md Ah Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2025

68 of the Act in the assessment farmed under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2016. 2.2. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing and holding as under:- “I have carefully considered the findings of the AO in the assessment order, submission of the appellant, Remand report

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

investments in the form of securities premium to M/s New KMS. These companies are mainly paper companies. During the year under consideration M/s Shanker Construction had received unsecured loan of Rs. 50,90,740/- during the financial year 2015-16. As M/s New KMS is showing very meager income and it does not have any activity to support the huge

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 officer

RUBI KUMARI,SAMASTIPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (3), SAMASTIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.263/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rubi Kumari….……………………………. …………………....Appellant C/O Maa Tarini Auro Services, Belsanditara, Bibhutipur, Samastipur, Bihar- 848207. [Pan: Akupk7000Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(3), Samastipur…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 1St, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2025 Passed By The Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Ate That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derived Her Income From Petrol Pump. For The Assessment Year 2017- 18, The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.9,75,504/-. The Assessing Officer Found During The Assessment Proceedings That There Was Discrepancy In Disclosing Of Closing Stock Amounting To Rs.264871/- & The Assessee Had Unexplained Expenditure Of Rs.10,68,685/- & The Assessee Received Undisclosed Interest From Investments Of Rs.31,006/- & There Was

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief facts of the case ate that the assessee is an individual and derived her income from petrol pump. For the assessment year 2017- 18, the assessee filed her return of income declaring total income of Rs.9,75,504/-. The Assessing Officer found during the assessment proceedings that there was discrepancy

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)

68,567, the net discrepancy was worked out. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee voluntarily declared additional income of ₹70,00,000 over and above the normal profit. However, the Assessing Officer further treated the closing stock of ₹43,49,933 (out of total discrepancy) as unexplained investment in stock and added the same to the total income

ITO, WARD-3(1), GAYA vs. SHRI GAURI TEXTILES INDUSTRIES, GAYA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and corresponding cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.118/Pat/2020 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Gaya…………….………………………………….…..……Appellant Vs. Shri Gauri Textile Industries, Gaya…………...........……........……...…..…..Respondent Buniadgaj Manpur, Gaya, Bihar-823003. [Pan: Aalfs4803J] C.O. No.5/Pat/2021 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.118/Pat/2020) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Gauri Textile Industries, Gaya ……………….………………..….…..Cross-Objector Buniadgaj Manpur, Gaya, Bihar-823003. [Pan: Aalfs4803J] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Gaya………….................................……........……....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Rastogi, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Ashok Kumar, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.08.2020 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] & The Assessee Has Filed The Corresponding Cross-Objection Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That A Survey Was Conducted On 07.02.2017 In The Case Of The Assessee, A Partnership Firm Engaged In Trading Business Of Cotton Yarn & Hosiery Yarn. During The Survey, It Was Observed That The Assessee Has Made Substantial Deposits In Various Bank Accounts Linked With The Firm. However, The Assessee Disclosed

unexplained investment in stock. The appellant is a partnership firm having its business located at Manpur, Gaya. The same premises are shared by another partnership firm M/s Semraj Ram. Both firms located at the same premises were subjected to survey operation on 08.02.2017. The A.O. states in the assessment order that the stock register was maintained till 31.01.2017. Further

SHREE SHREE DWARIKAJI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. DC/AC, CIRCLE-2, PATNA

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

section 147 of the Act and added an amount of Rs. 46,00,000/- on account of alleged share application money received from one M/s Glorious Holdings Pvt. Ltd. It is a matter of record that the Ld. AO made several attempts to verify the genuineness of the transaction but due to non-cooperation by the assessee, the same could