VISHWAMBHAR CHAUDHARI,KATIHAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), KATIHAR

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

capital gains on presumption and surmises. The case of the assessee has not been considered in proper perspective. The assessee duly apprised to the department that the property sold was agricultural land and any gains on the same was exempt under provision of section 10(37) of the L. T. Act, 1961. Before the department the assessee duly filed copy

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

234A, 234B, 234C). Issue demand notice and penalty proceedings are initiated u/s. 271D & u/s. 27IE”. 5. Dissatisfied with this reopening, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal by observing that since 4 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Dolly Ghosh no addition has been made to the total income

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

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

ANUP KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD 6(4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 401/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Anup Kumar,……………..………….…….....……Appellant Sultanpur, Danapur, Patna-801503, Bihar [Pan:Cdupk6764J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………….Respondent Ward-6(4), Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, New Dak Bunglow, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Alok Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

section 147 of the Income Tax Act on 28.11.2019 assessing the long-term capital gain at Rs.51,45,000/- and deducted the tax on LTCG @ 20%, i.e. Rs.10,29,000/-, Education Cess @ 3% on Rs.10,29,000/-, i.e. Rs.30,870/- , interest u/s 234A

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

VEENA MISHRA THROUGH NITISH MISHRA,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENT.CIR-1, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 234A, 234B and 234C of the income tax Act, 1961 on the total income as computed in the orders of assessment and Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the same. 15. For that the order of the assessment so passed by the assessing officer and the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT Appeal is otherwise arbitrary and illegal