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

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

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

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 was of agriculture i.e., Dhanhar

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

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

Capital Gain as assumed, ascertained\nand computed hypothetically by the Ld. A.O. could not be brought to tax\nU/Sec. 45 r.w.s. 48 of the Income - tax Act, 1961.\n11. It is further submitted that all these detailed submissions were made\nbefore the learned CIT(A), however, the learned CIT(A) has failed to\nappreciate the facts of the case

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

41 or section 59; (va) any sum chargeable to income-tax under clause (iiia) of section 28; (vb) any sum chargeable to income-tax under clause (iiib) of section 28; 8 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Dolly Ghosh (vc) any sum chargeable to income-tax under clause (iiic) of section 28; (vd) the value of any benefit or perquisite taxable under

SHIVAM ANAND,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD 6(5), PATNA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 48 of the Act held that the balance tax payable against the assessee is at Rs. 8,49,509/-. A penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has also been initiated. The said order has been challenged by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) wherein appeal of the assessee has been dismissed as there

SUDHIR KUMAR TULI,BIHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BIHAR

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.173/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sudhir Kumar Tuli..……………..………. …………………....Appellant B-12, Anjali Apartment Boring Road Behind Alankar Place, Patna - 800001. Bihar.. [Pan: Actpt9461D] Vs. Ito, Patna ………….......…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Kaushal Kr. Ar, ., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.02.2025 Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Relating To The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Entered Into A Land Development Agreement With A Builder For Development Of His Land. As Per The Terms Of The Agreement, No Monetary Consideration Was To Be Received By The Assessee Except For Three Residential Flats To Be Allotted To Him Upon Completion Of The Project. The Builder, After Development, Was To Become The Absolute Owner Of His Share In The Project & Would Thereafter Be Entitled To Enter Into Agreements For Sale In Respect Of Such Share. During The Course Of Proceedings, In Response To A Notice Issued

capital gain (LTCG) at ₹41,50,114/- and adding the same to the total income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). It was contended that due opportunity was not provided during assessment proceedings and that the assessment made under Section 144/147 was not justified, as the notice under Section

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

41,773/-. After the case being processed under section 143(1) of the Act, it was selected for limited scrutiny for two reasons- (i) sales turnover mismatch; (ii) unsecured loans and the same was followed by issuance of valid notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer asked

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

41 PM SELL 1 114.25 5000 571250.00 0 ZINC FUTURES 21/03/2011 03:57:32 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

DILIP KUMAR SINGH AND SONS,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(1), PATNA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.312/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dilip Kumar Singh & Sons….. ……..……………………....Appellant C/O Dilip Kr. Singh, East Lohanipur, Pustakalaya Lane, Kadamkuan, Patna- 800003. [Pan: Aaihd8902J] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(1), Patna……. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. V. Pathy, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 19, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Entered Into A Land Development Agreement With M/S Sankalp Construction During The Relevant Assessment Year. The Assessing Officer Noticed That As Per The Agreement, The Total Value Of Land Was Rs.4,41,14,025/- & The Value Of Share Owned By The Assessee At One Sixth Share Of 50% Of Land Owned By The Assessee Which Stands At Rs.36,76,169/-. On Perusal Of Records, The Assessing Officer Found That The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Return Of Income Nor Made Any Compliance, Therefore, He Issued Notice U/S 148

41,14,025/- and the value of share owned by the assessee at one sixth share of 50% of land owned by the assessee which stands at Rs.36,76,169/-. On perusal of records, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has not filed any return of income nor made any compliance, therefore, he issued notice u/s 148 I.T.A. No.312/Pat/2024