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.

200/- and index improvement cost of Rs.15,64,576/-. The assessee declared stamp duty value of the said property at Rs.43,17,000/-. It is the case of the revenue that in spite of requests made to the assessee for submission of proof of cost of acquisition, proof of improvement, sale deed and reason for not taking stamp duty value

PRAMOD KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD- 6(5), PATNA

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

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

section 50C of the act when the consideration for transfer of property was indeterminate. (v) That the Id CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in determining the consideration for transfer of the basis of notional figure. (vi) The Id CIT(A], NFAC, Delhi erred in computing the capital gain on the basis of such notional value as determined

PRABHAT KUMAR,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

Appeal is allowed\nfor statistical purposes

200 X 264/184)\nclaimed by the appellant in its return of income for the purpose of long term capital\ngain and taxing the same as capital gain, notwithstanding the fact that the\nappellant has given sufficient documentary evidences before the Id assessing\nofficer to substantiate the claim of cost of improvement.\n10. For that the Id. Commissioner of Income

AMRENDRA PRATAP SINGH,VARANASI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3(1), GAYA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

200 credited in bank account with Canara Bank bearing Account No.1191101016447, during the Previous Year 2011-12 corresponding to the Assessment Year 2012-13 is unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act and assessed the same under Section 115BBE of the Act, solely on the basis of some information shared by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit