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]

capital gain accrued amounting to Rs. 7,01,29,667/- was shown during the year and deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 4,45,12,849/- was claimed

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]

capital gain accrued amounting to Rs. 7,01,29,667/- was shown during the year and deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 4,45,12,849/- was claimed

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]

capital gain accrued amounting to Rs. 7,01,29,667/- was shown during the year and deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 4,45,12,849/- was claimed

RENU DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 672/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Renu Devi,……………………………....….………Appellant D/79, P.C. Colony, Lohia Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna-800020, Bihar [Pan:Algpd4522P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-6(2), Patna Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

capital gain where the cost of the land indexed should have been deducted to arrive at the capital gains relevant

HARIHAR PRASAD,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 4 (4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

deduction of tax was made nor capital gain was computed and tax was assessed in case of other persons whose

MANOJ KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 4(4), PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

deduction u/s 54B of Rs. 1 Crore and the assessee is deposited Rs. 3,05,758/- and the capital gain

LALMUNI DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

deduct the indexed cost of acquisition and the cost of improvement from the sale consideration received and thereafter compute the capital gains

DHARMAVIR KUMAR,PATNA vs. DC/AC CIRCLE 4, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dharmavir Kumar Dc/Acit, Circle-4, C/O Naseeb Prasad, Income Tax Department, Lok Paithaninathpur,Narayan Chak, Nayak Jai Prakash Bhavan, New Vs. Phulwari. Dak Bunglow Road, Bihar-800002 Patna-800001, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Avzpk4382P Assessee By : Shri Sudeep Sinha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2025

capital gains shall be computed as per section 48 by deducting from the full value of consideration received or accruing

BAIJU ROY,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-4(2), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Capital Gain. However, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 54B of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on account of purchase of agriculture

SEEMA SRIVASTAVA,PATNA vs. ITO,DC/AC-6, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gains. The notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and subsequently notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was also issued but there was no compliance by the assessee. The assessee had shown receipt of Rs. 2,87,77,235/- from sale of immovable property during the year under consideration and had claimed deduction

PANCHAM PAL,PATNA vs. I.T.O, WARD- 6 (4), PATNA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gains and not allowing deduction u/s 54F to the appellant. 18. For that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals

ITO, WARD-4(1), PATNA vs. JAGDISH RAY, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of revenue-ITA No

capital gain arising on transfer of land by way of acquisition by the Government of India is not taxable. I accordingly hold that the additions of Rs. 1,04,58,374/- made by computing LTCG is not sustainable. Hence, the same is deleted. In the result, the appeal of appellant is allowed. 9. From perusal of the above findings

KRIPA SHANKER,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gain is chargeable as per the provision of section 54 F of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7. For that the Learned A.O. has taken the estimated cost of acquisition of the land at Rs.10,000 and the same has been deducted

ASHA DEVI L/H OF LATE GYAN CHAND PRASAD,PATNA vs. PR.CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Capital Gain. The statement of non taxability based on Circular No. 36/2016 dated 25/10/2016 Issued by CBDT With relying on the provision of the RFCTLARR ACT, 2013. CIRCULAR 36/2016 dated 25/10/2016 issued by CBDT Non-taxability of the compensation received by the land owners for the land acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation

ANUP KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD 6(4), 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. 401/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Anup Kumar,……………..………….…….....……Appellant Sultanpur, Danapur, Patna-801503, Bihar [Pan:Cdupk6764J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………….Respondent Ward-6(4), Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, New Dak Bunglow, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Alok Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

capital gain at Rs.51,45,000/- and deducted the tax on LTCG @ 20%, i.e. Rs.10,29,000/-, Education Cess @ 3% on Rs.10

KAMLESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD- 6 (4), PATNA

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

Gain as assumed, ascertained\nand computed hypothetically by the Ld. A.O. could not be brought to tax\nU/Sec. 45 r.w.s. 48 of the Income - tax Act, 1961.\n11. It is further submitted that all these detailed submissions were made\nbefore the learned CIT(A), however, the learned CIT(A) has failed to\nappreciate the facts of the case and just

SANJU SINHA,PATNA vs. ITO WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Dr. Manish Borad, Am Sanju Sinha, Ito, Ward 6(1) Khajpura, B. V College, Patna-800 001 Khajpura, Patna-800014, Vs. Bihar Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Apkps0784A Assessee By : Shri Prasoon Kr., Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2024

capital gain. Sanju Sinha; A.Y. 2015-16 6. For that the assessing office neither recorded valid reason nor the JCIT and Commissioner accorded valid sanction as prescribed undersection 151 of the Act, as such, whole of the re-assessment proceeding and levy of tax is bad in law. 7. For that the assessing officer had not deducted

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

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

Bench: the sale of immovable properties on which long term capital gain was derived.

deduction u/s 54F of the Act. 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in holding that construction of residential house was started before the sale of immovable properties on which long term capital gain