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

capital gain of Rs.64,02,144/- by following the provisions of Section 50C of the Act and the same is adjudicated as under:- ITA No.: 18/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Lalmuni Devi. 5.1. On receipt of information under section 133(6

HARI NARAYAN GUPTA (HUF),PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (5), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain, arising from and with\nrespect to Land Development Agreement (LDA) dated 04.08.2010,\nbetween the assessee and M/s Artech Construction Engineering Pvt.\nLtd. has escaped assessment. In this LDA between the assessee and\ndeveloper, it was agreed to develop the property by the builder, with\nshare of 42.5% of the total land area of 12598 sq. ft. owned

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

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

sections": [ "250", "144", "147", "249(4)(b)", "45", "48", "2(47)(v)", "53A", "133(6)", "208", "209(1)", "210" ], "issues": "Whether capital gains

SONAM RAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), PATNA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.02/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Vibhuti Bhushan Sinha………………………….....…...……………....Appellant C-601, Shivam Apartment, Virmeshwar Nagar, Dwarka, Gujrat-361335. [Pan: Aigps7118D] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent I.T.A. No.03/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Sonam Raj…………..………………………….....…...……………....Appellant W/O Shri Deepak Verma, 2Nd Floor, House No.101, Pocket-52, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi – 110019. [Pan: Dfsps6397E] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sushil Kr. Mishra, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By Two Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.04.2021 & 01.03.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and not been taken place on registration of the JDA as because the JDA is mere agreement to develop the property in future without transferring the ownership till completion of the proposed development. Above all capital gain is taxable mount of gain not on estimated presumed amount which the lower authorities considered

VIBHUTI BHUSHAN SINHA,DWARKA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), PATNA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.02/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Vibhuti Bhushan Sinha………………………….....…...……………....Appellant C-601, Shivam Apartment, Virmeshwar Nagar, Dwarka, Gujrat-361335. [Pan: Aigps7118D] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent I.T.A. No.03/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Sonam Raj…………..………………………….....…...……………....Appellant W/O Shri Deepak Verma, 2Nd Floor, House No.101, Pocket-52, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi – 110019. [Pan: Dfsps6397E] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sushil Kr. Mishra, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By Two Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.04.2021 & 01.03.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and not been taken place on registration of the JDA as because the JDA is mere agreement to develop the property in future without transferring the ownership till completion of the proposed development. Above all capital gain is taxable mount of gain not on estimated presumed amount which the lower authorities considered

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

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' for enabling the appellant to make compliance through ITBA Portal. 7. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in not uploading the notices on ITBA

SAROJ DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 53A of the T. P. Act or u/s 2(47)(v) of the I. T. Act, 1961 before actual possession is received from the developer. The Assessing Officer wrongly estimated the cost of construction of super built-up area including parking space at the rate of 1500/- per sft. In view of the above, the Long Term Capital Gain

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” by observing as under:- 2 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Baiju Roy “In this regard, this office called for information u/s 133(6) from Land Acquisition Officer, Patna that the land in question was acquired under compulsory by the State Govt./Central Govt. The Land Acquisition Officer has reported vide his letter No.2413 dated 04.12.2018 that the land

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

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

133(6) in terms of copies of land development agreement, it was found by the Assessing Officer (“the Ld. AO”) that the assessee Shri Raj Kumar Singh had entered into and registered a Land development agreement (“JDA”) with M/s Singh Engicon (India Pvt. Ltd.) in the financial year 2015-16 relevant to the assessment year 2016-17. On perusal

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

133(6) of the Act to both the loan creditor companies to which sufficient compliance was made along with the documents asked for by the ld. Assessing Officer. In nutshell, genuineness of the unsecured loan received by the assessee during the relevant financial year stood examined by the ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment proceeding

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Assessment Year : 2015-16 Punam Sinha, Near Shiv Mandir, Vs. Ito, Ward 6(1), Patna Khajpura, Patna-800014,Bihar Pan/Gir No. Ainps 1974 Q (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025 O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 06.06.2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Patna -2/11391/2019-20 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 301 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Stating That At The Time Of Ld Cit(A) Passed The Order, The Assessee Was Suffering From Spine Diseases & Also Eye Disease I.E. Glucoma. Due To This Fact, She Was Not Unable To Look After Her Day-To-Day Business. It Is Also Stated That Assessee Being A Lady Was Not Conversant With P A G E 1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2015-16

133(6) of the Act that the assessee is having piece of ancestral land of 13503.6 sq.ft in the name of six persons and all are family members. The assessee jointly made a development agreement with Jammano Shree Estate Private Limited for construction of the building. Accordingly, to the development agreement, the assessee is having 45 percent share

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 54F of the IT Act, 1961 then no Capital Gain Tax would have been payable. 10. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the Assessing Officer has erred in holding that the cost of the land under question at NIL. 11. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the Assessing Officer has erred

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

6. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in ignoring the legislative intent behind provisions of sections 54 and 54F which are beneficial provisions promoting purchase/construction of residential houses, hence, liberal, pragmatic interpretation should be taken to the provisions and technical errors should not deprive assessee of legitimate claim of deduction/ exemption particularly in the light of circular

JAI PRAKASH SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Assessment Year : 2015-16 Jai Prakash Singh, Near Shiv Vs. Ito, Ward 6(1), Patna Mandir, Khajpura, Patna- 800014, Bihar Pan/Gir No. Ainps 1974 Q (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025 O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 21.08.2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Patna -1/11368/2019-20 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 239 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Stating That The Assessee Being A Senior Citizen & Was Not Conversant With The Computer System. The Notices Were Issued To The Assessee By The Ld Cit(A) In The Income Tax Portal & Since The Assessee Was Not Aware Of The Notices, No Submissions As Well As Paper Book Was Filed.

133(6) of the Act that the assessee is having piece of ancestral land of 13503.6 sq.ft in the name of six persons and all are family members. The assessee jointly made a development agreement with Jammano Shree Estate Private Limited for construction of the building. Accordingly, to the development agreement, the assessee is having 45 percent share

SHIVAM ANAND,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD 6(5), PATNA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

133(6) of the Act found that assessee and the developer had agreed to the development arrangement where full share of 50% of the total land area of 2041.5 Sq.Ft. owned by the assessee will be constructed upon by the land developer. It is further alleged in the assessment order that in terms of the land development agreement the share

NAGENDRA SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 5 (3), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 272/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016

capital gains arising out of such transfer as per provisions of sections 2(47)(v), 45 and 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assesese did not file any return of income. Notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under section 144 read with section

SUDHIR KUMAR TULI,BIHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BIHAR

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.173/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sudhir Kumar Tuli..……………..………. …………………....Appellant B-12, Anjali Apartment Boring Road Behind Alankar Place, Patna - 800001. Bihar.. [Pan: Actpt9461D] Vs. Ito, Patna ………….......…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Kaushal Kr. Ar, ., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.02.2025 Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Relating To The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Entered Into A Land Development Agreement With A Builder For Development Of His Land. As Per The Terms Of The Agreement, No Monetary Consideration Was To Be Received By The Assessee Except For Three Residential Flats To Be Allotted To Him Upon Completion Of The Project. The Builder, After Development, Was To Become The Absolute Owner Of His Share In The Project & Would Thereafter Be Entitled To Enter Into Agreements For Sale In Respect Of Such Share. During The Course Of Proceedings, In Response To A Notice Issued

133(6), the assessee furnished an explanation and also complied with certain notices issued by the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer, not being satisfied with the explanation furnished and observing that there was no proper compliance to various statutory notices, completed the assessment ex parte under Sections 144 and 147, determining long-term capital gain

YADUNANDAN PRASAD (L/H OF SHASHI DEVI),PATNA vs. ITO,WARD- 6 (4A), PATNA

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

capital gains tax. In order to ascertain the compliance to the provisions of Income Tax Statute by the parties engaging in land development agreement in Patna Revenue District, information regarding such land development agreement was requisitioned after due prior approval under section 133(6