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 should not be added to the income of the assessee due to non declaration of the same in the return of income. The ld. A.R argued that by misconstruing the provisions of section 139(9) of the Act and 292B of the Act, the AO has treated the return of income as invalid which is wrong

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]

capital gain should not be added to the income of the assessee due to non declaration of the same in the return of income. The ld. A.R argued that by misconstruing the provisions of section 139(9) of the Act and 292B of the Act, the AO has treated the return of income as invalid which is wrong

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 should not be added to the income of the assessee due to non declaration of the same in the return of income. The ld. A.R argued that by misconstruing the provisions of section 139(9) of the Act and 292B of the Act, the AO has treated the return of income as invalid which is wrong

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 should not be added to the income of the assessee due to non declaration of the same in the return of income. The ld. A.R argued that by misconstruing the provisions of section 139(9) of the Act and 292B of the Act, the AO has treated the return of income as invalid which is wrong

KUMAR ARUNODAYA,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6, PATNA [NEW – DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, PATNA], 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 should not be added to the income of the assessee due to non declaration of the same in the return of income. The ld. A.R argued that by misconstruing the provisions of section 139(9) of the Act and 292B of the Act, the AO has treated the return of income as invalid which is wrong

DOLLY GHOSH,BHAGALPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2) and (3) of section 17; (iiia)any special allowance or benefit, other than perquisite included under sub-clause (iii), specifically granted to the assessee to meet expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively for the performance of the duties of an office or employment of profit; (iiib)any allowance granted to the assessee either to meet his personal expenses

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

section 147 of the Act, as applicable for the assessment year under consideration as there is no allegation of any failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all the material facts necessary for assessment for the assessment year under consideration. Admittedly, as noted above, the earlier assessment in this case was carried out u/s. 153A/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

section 147 of the Act, as applicable for the assessment year under consideration as there is no allegation of any failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all the material facts necessary for assessment for the assessment year under consideration. Admittedly, as noted above, the earlier assessment in this case was carried out u/s. 153A/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

section 147 of the Act, as applicable for the assessment year under consideration as there is no allegation of any failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all the material facts necessary for assessment for the assessment year under consideration. Admittedly, as noted above, the earlier assessment in this case was carried out u/s. 153A/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

section 147 of the Act, as applicable for the assessment year under consideration as there is no allegation of any failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all the material facts necessary for assessment for the assessment year under consideration. Admittedly, as noted above, the earlier assessment in this case was carried out u/s. 153A/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

section 147 of the Act, as applicable for the assessment year under consideration as there is no allegation of any failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all the material facts necessary for assessment for the assessment year under consideration. Admittedly, as noted above, the earlier assessment in this case was carried out u/s. 153A/143

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

17-September-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 18-November-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

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

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

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

17-July-2025\n: 07-August-2025\nORDER\nPER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:\nThis appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter\nreferred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\n(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for AY 2015-16 dated

HAMID ALI,ROHTAS vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (4), SASARAM

In the result, ITA No.356/Pat/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.356 & 357/Pat/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Hamid Ali…..……………..……………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Gulam Murtaza Zakki Shaheed, Sasaram, Rohtas, Bihar – 821115. [Pan: Atppa8563N] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Sasaram.…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Adv. & Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Madhumita Roy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 12.12.2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi Arising Out Of The Orders Dated 23.02.2021 & 23.08.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) & U/S 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Respectively For Assessment Year 2018-19. Ita No.356/Pat/2025 Relates To Quantum Order Whereas Ita No.357/Pat/2025 Relates To Penalty Order.

17,000/- and not the amount declared by the assessee appearing as the sale consideration in the sale deed itself. An amount of Rs.31,19,776/- was added in the hands of the assessee on account of long-term capital gains which was confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the instant appeal is before us. 4. At the time

HAMID ALI,ROHTAS vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (4), SASARAM

In the result, ITA No.356/Pat/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.356 & 357/Pat/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Hamid Ali…..……………..……………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Gulam Murtaza Zakki Shaheed, Sasaram, Rohtas, Bihar – 821115. [Pan: Atppa8563N] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Sasaram.…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Adv. & Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Madhumita Roy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 12.12.2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi Arising Out Of The Orders Dated 23.02.2021 & 23.08.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) & U/S 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Respectively For Assessment Year 2018-19. Ita No.356/Pat/2025 Relates To Quantum Order Whereas Ita No.357/Pat/2025 Relates To Penalty Order.

17,000/- and not the amount declared by the assessee appearing as the sale consideration in the sale deed itself. An amount of Rs.31,19,776/- was added in the hands of the assessee on account of long-term capital gains which was confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the instant appeal is before us. 4. At the time

SUMAN DEVI,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Suman Devi Ito, Ward-6(1), Patna

17,333/- and treated the same as the unexplained investment of the assessee. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment. It was the submission that the payments have been made during the assessment year 2013-14 and the addition could not be made in the assessment year 2014-15 just because the registration has been

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

17-September-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 12-November-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred