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 on certain long term gain during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO observed that the assessee has taken unsecured loan of Rs. 34,00,000/- and accordingly called upon the assessee to furnish the details of names and addresses of the persons along with confirmation letters, bank statements and other evidences. The assessee replied the queries

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 on certain long term gain during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO observed that the assessee has taken unsecured loan of Rs. 34,00,000/- and accordingly called upon the assessee to furnish the details of names and addresses of the persons along with confirmation letters, bank statements and other evidences. The assessee replied the queries

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 on certain long term gain during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO observed that the assessee has taken unsecured loan of Rs. 34,00,000/- and accordingly called upon the assessee to furnish the details of names and addresses of the persons along with confirmation letters, bank statements and other evidences. The assessee replied the queries

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

32,667 square feet. As per the land development agreement registered, the total value of Land was ₹ 2,97,00,000/-. As a bundle of ownership rights over his share of land was relinquished by the assessee in terms of the land ITA No.: 341/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Raj Kumar Singh. development agreement and as the terms

SHIVENDU SHEKHAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD6(5), PATNA

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

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

section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the Assessing Officer that the assessee along with his brother were the owner and in possession of 2 acres and 14 guntas of land comprised at Hobli, Bangalore. They entered into a joint development agreement on 09.08.2006 with developer

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

SHIVENDU SHEKHAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(5), PATNA, PATNA

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

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

section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the Assessing Officer that the assessee along with his brother were the owner and in possession of 2 acres and 14 guntas of land comprised at Hobli, Bangalore. They entered into a joint development agreement on 09.08.2006 with developer

XAVIERS CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PATNA vs. ITO WARD- 2 (2), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 349/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Xaviers Construction Pvt. Limited,....……Appellant House No. 239, Lodipur, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Aaacx0342D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….....Respondent Ward-2(2), Patna Appearances By: Shri Anjan Biswas, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: February 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 21, 2025 O R D E R

section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act were issued and served upon the assessee. During the scrutiny proceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer has observed that the appellant has earned income on account of sale of three flats. The ld. Assessing Officer further observed that during the financial year 2014-15, the assesee had recognized income

SHEKHAR NARAYAN,PATNA vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gain. 16. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission along with evidences and documents on or before the date of hearing. 17. For that the appellant may be given opportunity of personal hearing physically or virtually as the law permits at the time of hearing of the appeal. 18. For that the charging

SHEKHAR NARAYAN,PATNA vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gain. 16. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission along with evidences and documents on or before the date of hearing. 17. For that the appellant may be given opportunity of personal hearing physically or virtually as the law permits at the time of hearing of the appeal. 18. For that the charging

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

32,200 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

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. SH. SURESH , PATNA

gain of transfer of lands as arose to the assesse. (ii) Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding Rupam Tower as Residential House and has erred in allowing deduction u/s 54 to the LTCG arising to the assessee. (iii) Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the claim of the assessee regarding the cost of construction of the Rupam Tower building

ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA vs. M/S SUN COMTECH PVT LTD, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

32 PM SELL 1 113.65 5000 568250.00 0 ZINC FUTURES 21/03/2011 03:58:50 PM SELL 10 113.20 5000 5660000.00 2 ZINC FUTURES 21/03/201103:59:16 PM SELL 11 113.20 5000 6226000.00 13 ZINC FUTURES 21/03/2011 03:59:55 PM SELL 5 113.20 5000 2830000.00 1 ZINC FUTURES 21/03/201104:00:15 PM SELL 5 113.20 5000 2830000.00 1 ZINC FUTURES

ACIT, PATNA vs. NEW ERA SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT WELFARE SOCIETY, PATNA

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

32 dated 4th January 1988 in its ITR. But assessee did not submit copy of certificate of registration after giving several opportunities to justify its claim i.e. Details of project and institution run by assessee, for which it has claimed exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the I. T. Act, 1961. Further, for claiming exemption under section 11, assessee

I.T.O. vs. M/S KUMAR CONSTRUCLTION,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

32,56,424/- 5. Sri Manish Kumar 1,00,000/- ___________________ Total: 1,43,10,424/- ___________________ 13. It is pertinent to mention here that the assessee has not shown this expense separately, in its audit report. Had the books of A/c not perused thoroughly, this fact would have gone unnoticed. As this expense is in the nature of rent, therefore