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

natural justice - It was noted chat High Courts and Supreme Court have dealt with similar issues and had dismissed appeal filed by revenue and had deleted addition made under section 68 by treating impugned Long term Capital Gain

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

natural justice - It was noted chat High Courts and Supreme Court have dealt with similar issues and had dismissed appeal filed by revenue and had deleted addition made under section 68 by treating impugned Long term Capital Gain

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

natural justice - It was noted chat High Courts and Supreme Court have dealt with similar issues and had dismissed appeal filed by revenue and had deleted addition made under section 68 by treating impugned Long term Capital Gain

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

natural justice - It was noted chat High Courts and Supreme Court have dealt with similar issues and had dismissed appeal filed by revenue and had deleted addition made under section 68 by treating impugned Long term Capital Gain

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

natural justice - It was noted chat High Courts and Supreme Court have dealt with similar issues and had dismissed appeal filed by revenue and had deleted addition made under section 68 by treating impugned Long term Capital Gain

PUSHPA KUMARI,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 7/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Pushpa Kumari,…………………..…...…………Appellant Rashtiriya Ganj, Station Road, Phulwari Sharif, Patna-801505, Bihar [Pan:Agmpk8844Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…..………………………...Respondent Ward-6(2), Patna Appearances By: Shri Prasoon Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2024 O R D E R

capital gain is not raised under natural justice. (ii) The appellant did not receive any capital gain during the financial

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

natural justice on the part of the A.O. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in upholding the rejection of claim of deduction u/s 54F amounting to Rs.2,58,34,383/- on account of purchase of residential house property at Delhi out of sale proceeds of land at Patna. 5. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC

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

nature. The assessee has taken sixteen grounds. However, his grievances revolve around two-folds, namely- (a) ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in not condoning the delay and deciding the appeal on merit. (b) Whether capital gain on compensation received by the assessee for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land is leviable in his hands or not. 3. Brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Natural Justice. 5. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 read with section 143(3). 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in sending the notices on email although the notices were required to be sent on ITBA portal under the tab 'for your action

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

natural justice. 2. For that the assessing officer has computed capital gain on hypothetical sell consideration without looking to the fact

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

capital gain. 7. For that the CIT (Appeal) grossly erred in passing ex-parte order confirming levy and demand of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C levied and demanded in the order passed by the Ld. assessing officer is unjustified and illegal. 8. For that the CIT (Appeal) erred in passing ex-parte order confirming initiation of penal proceeding under section

RUSHATAM KHAN,PURNEA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PURNEA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2013-

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

capital gain. 7. For that the CIT (Appeal) grossly erred in passing ex-parte order confirming levy and demand of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C levied and demanded in the order passed by the Ld. assessing officer is unjustified and illegal. 8. For that the CIT (Appeal) erred in passing ex-parte order confirming initiation of penal proceeding under section

DIPAK KUMAR SINGH & SONS HUF,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2), PATNA

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the delay was on account of ignorance of law and the assessee was alerted for filing the appeal only when they received a notice proposing levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the issue of delayed filing with the help of several authorities on the subject and has declined to condone the said delay due to which the appeal was dismissed. 3.1 Further aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is

nature were retrospective in operation and that on such construction no such certificate of completion having been issued in the assessment year under consideration the order of assessment bringing to tax a hypothetical income is vitiated in law and is arbitrary. 7. For that in any view of the matter the order of assessment bringing to tax income from capital

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

natural justice and therefore, the impugned order may be annulled. 5. For that the assessment order itself was bad in law as the Ld. A.O. did not serve the mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act during the course of assessment proceedings. 6. For that the entire consideration received on sale of land has been invested over construction

SHARDHA DEVI,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATNA

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

Capital Gains (LTCG) worked out as\nRs. 70,07,715/-. The LTCG has been worked out on the basis of Joint\nDevelopment Agreement entered into by the assessee. Aggrieved with this\naction of the Ld. AO, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) and there also\nthe assessee could not succeed since the basis for making the impugned\naddition

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

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

justice.\n2. For that the order of learned C.I.T.-(A), NFAC passed in the above case\nwithout verifying authenticity of the information based on which\nassessment has been made by learned AO is bad and not based on the\nmerits of the case.\n3. The fact of the case is that The Appellant is an individual having PAN No.-\nDWSPK7654F

ANUP KUMAR HUF,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENT. CIR-1, PATNA, 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. 192/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Anup Kumar Huf,…………………...….………Appellant 4A, Narayan Nilayam Apartment, Road No. 6 Rajendra Nagar, Patna-800016 Bihar [Pan:Aahha5422R] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax....Respondent Central Circle-1, Patna

capital gain. The assessee was asked to submit explanation. The assessee stated in its written reply that it sold the script of M/s. Kailash Auto and on that transaction, it claimed the exemption on LTCG. Being not satisfied, the ld. Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.15,11,000/- and added back to the total income of the assessee as undisclosed income from

AJAY KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (3), PATNA, PATNA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

natural justice kindly condone the delay for filing of appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal so, that appellant case may be admit for hearing.” 1.2. Considering the affidavit and condonation application and the reasons stated therein, we are satisfied that the assessee had reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within statutory time limit