ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, 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]

section 147 and the issuance of Notice u/s 148 besides the alleged addition of Capital Gains and the purported assessment made u/s 143

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]

section 147 and the issuance of Notice u/s 148 besides the alleged addition of Capital Gains and the purported assessment made u/s 143

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]

section 147 and the issuance of Notice u/s 148 besides the alleged addition of Capital Gains and the purported assessment made u/s 143

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

143(3)/147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer added an amount of Rs.26,56,550/- treating the Long-term Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed by the assessee as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. Being aggrieved by the said action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed

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

143(3)/147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer added an amount of Rs.26,56,550/- treating the Long-term Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed by the assessee as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. Being aggrieved by the said action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed

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

143(3)/147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer added an amount of Rs.26,56,550/- treating the Long-term Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed by the assessee as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. Being aggrieved by the said action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed

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

143(3)/147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer added an amount of Rs.26,56,550/- treating the Long-term Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed by the assessee as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. Being aggrieved by the said action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed

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

143(3)/147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer added an amount of Rs.26,56,550/- treating the Long-term Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed by the assessee as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. Being aggrieved by the said action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed

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

capital is received from this company. This fact demonstrates that reopening is based on vague reasons. 10. On the given set of facts, where the alleged unsecured loan/ cash creditors have already been examined by the ld. Assessing Officer in the regular assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act and there is no transaction at all between third party

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

gain and assessed income ITA No.: 268/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Harihar Prasad. under section 143(3) of Rs.2,47,38,940/-. The assessing officer thereafter passed order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 01.10.2019 wherein income was assessed to Rs.2,47,38,940/- including income from capital

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

section s147, 148,143(2) and 142 (1) of income tax act 1961 to the appellant-assessee in respect of escaped income for capital gain

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 gain and taxing the same in the hands of the appellant. 10. For that the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed of.” 2.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 04.03.2017, declaring a total income of Rs.12

SANGEETA GOEL,PATNA vs. CCIT, NFAC, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 211/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sangeeta Goel Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax/Nfac 506, Santosha Complex Vs Fraser Road Bander Bagicha Patna - 800001 [Pan: Acbpg0887A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 30/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. A. That The Initiation Of Proceeding U/S 147 R.W.S 148 Of The It Act, 1961 Based On Alleged Information Of Bogus Trade Amounting To Rs. 35,09,213/- In The Shares & Securities Of M/S Ayaan Commercial Pvt Ltd Being Bereft Of Fact & Assessee Having Not Carried On Any Such Transaction, The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The It Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law. B. That The Ld. A.O. Having Rejected The Objection Of The Assessee Although These Facts Are Brought On Record His Action In Doing So Is Bad In Law. C. That The Reopening U/S 147 Was Based On Mere Suspicion & Surmises, The Proceeding U/S 147 R.W.S. 148 Of The It Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law.

section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 pertaining to Explanation-3, although permits the Ld. A.O. to make addition beyond reason recorded, however, that is possible only if the escapement on the basis of reason recorded is proved. 5. That, as the order of the Ld. C.I.T.(A) on the above issues suffers from illegality and is devoid

SANJIV KUMAR SINGH,HATHINI vs. NFAC, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 323/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Sanjiv Kumar Singh,………………...…………Appellant 23 S/O. Barhma Singh, At Po Hathni, Rohitas-802215, Bihar [Pan:Bmsps6887A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…..………………………...Respondent Nfac, New Delhi Appearances By: Smt. Smriti Singh, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 03, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2024 O R D E R

capital gains. Notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued to the appellant, but there

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)

143(2) of the Act dated 05.07.2017 was issued to the assessee and subsequently, other statutory notices were issued to the assessee and assessee furnished reply the AO observed that the assessee engaged in agricultural activities has purchased a new asset on 26.03.2016 for Rs. 1 crore and claimed deduction u/s 54B of Rs. 1 Crore and the assessee

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

143(3) of the Act, dated 28.12.2019. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in not allowing opportunity of virtual hearing as mandated u/s 250(2) of the Act read with Sub-section (6B) and the guidelines prescribed in the Faceless Appeal

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

In the result, the appeal of revenue-ITA No

capital gain (LTCG) arising out of compensation against the land acquisition treating as exempt from tax. 6. Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to following written submissions which were filed before the ld. CIT(A):-: 1. That the above appeal is directed against the demand notice issued by Income Tax Officer Ward 4(4), Patna dated

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

sections and on the basis of report received from the Land Acquisition Officer and Circle Officer, the land in question is taxable u/s 45(5) of the Income-tax Act,1961 as Capital Gain. However, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 54B of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on account of purchase of agriculture land and Rs.25