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

1 to 4 pertain to the single issue of addition of capital gain of Rs.64,02,144/- by following the provisions of Section

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

4]” Page 12 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 v) PCIT VS Kishore Kumar Mohapatra 298 Taxman 648 (SC)[05-04-2024) “SLP dismissed against order of High Court that where Assessing officer denied exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) on long-term capital gain

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

4]” Page 12 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 v) PCIT VS Kishore Kumar Mohapatra 298 Taxman 648 (SC)[05-04-2024) “SLP dismissed against order of High Court that where Assessing officer denied exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) on long-term capital gain

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

4]” Page 12 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 v) PCIT VS Kishore Kumar Mohapatra 298 Taxman 648 (SC)[05-04-2024) “SLP dismissed against order of High Court that where Assessing officer denied exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) on long-term capital gain

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

4]” Page 12 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 v) PCIT VS Kishore Kumar Mohapatra 298 Taxman 648 (SC)[05-04-2024) “SLP dismissed against order of High Court that where Assessing officer denied exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) on long-term capital gain

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

4]” Page 12 of 14 I.T.A. No.: 179 to 183/PAT/2023 Amar Kasera (HUF), AYs : 2011-12, 2013-14 to 2015-16 v) PCIT VS Kishore Kumar Mohapatra 298 Taxman 648 (SC)[05-04-2024) “SLP dismissed against order of High Court that where Assessing officer denied exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) on long-term 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

1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of compensation of Rs.4,71,91,650 in the hands of the appellant u/s 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under the head capital gains. 3. For that section

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

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

sections": [ "250", "144", "147", "249(4)(b)", "45", "48", "2(47)(v)", "53A", "133(6)", "208", "209(1)", "210" ], "issues": "Whether capital gains

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]

4,24,41,600/- which was revised by the assessee declaring total income of Rs. 2,49,73,811/-. The said revision was done in order to reduce the claim u/s 54EC and 54F against the declared long term capital gain on certain long term gain during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO observed that the assessee has taken

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]

4,24,41,600/- which was revised by the assessee declaring total income of Rs. 2,49,73,811/-. The said revision was done in order to reduce the claim u/s 54EC and 54F against the declared long term capital gain on certain long term gain during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO observed that the assessee has taken

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]

4,24,41,600/- which was revised by the assessee declaring total income of Rs. 2,49,73,811/-. The said revision was done in order to reduce the claim u/s 54EC and 54F against the declared long term capital gain on certain long term gain during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO observed that the assessee has taken

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]

4,24,41,600/- which was revised by the assessee declaring total income of Rs. 2,49,73,811/-. The said revision was done in order to reduce the claim u/s 54EC and 54F against the declared long term capital gain on certain long term gain during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO observed that the assessee has taken

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]

4,24,41,600/- which was revised by the assessee declaring total income of Rs. 2,49,73,811/-. The said revision was done in order to reduce the claim u/s 54EC and 54F against the declared long term capital gain on certain long term gain during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO observed that the assessee has taken

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

capital gains for AY 2016-17 under the 3 Renu Devi provisions of section 48 of the Act and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT and raised the following grounds:- The Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) grossly erred in law and on facts (1

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

1) and (2) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act. 3. For that the computation of capital gain and levy of tax against the appellant of Rs.2,41,50,000/- is bad and illegal in view of the fact that as per the notification/press release issued by the executive engineer, PWD, Hilsa, Nalanda, the land in question

HARI NARAYAN GUPTA (HUF),PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (5), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1,33,85,300/- as made by the Id. AO\non account of long-term capital gain arising from the property given\nfor the Joint Development Agreement.\nThe facts in brief are that the assessee is deriving income from\nbusiness and is a senior citizen. During the year, the assessee filed\nthe return of income on 29.09.2011, showing total income

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

SONAM RAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), PATNA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.02/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Vibhuti Bhushan Sinha………………………….....…...……………....Appellant C-601, Shivam Apartment, Virmeshwar Nagar, Dwarka, Gujrat-361335. [Pan: Aigps7118D] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent I.T.A. No.03/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Sonam Raj…………..………………………….....…...……………....Appellant W/O Shri Deepak Verma, 2Nd Floor, House No.101, Pocket-52, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi – 110019. [Pan: Dfsps6397E] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sushil Kr. Mishra, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By Two Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.04.2021 & 01.03.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To

capital gain is that appellant must have acquire right to receive the income. For that there must be debt owed to him by somebody. Both the authorities failed to appreciate that income tax is a levy on actual income but not hypothetical income. It is a fact that Income Tax Act taxed income in two points of time at which