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]

43,27,813/- for sale of land of M/s Chandramauli Developers Pvt. Ltd. has not materialized as the cheque issued by the said party were not honoured and therefore sale deed became invalid and was cancelled and consequently no capital gain was shown in the return of income. Therefore even on merit the revenue has no case

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]

43,27,813/- for sale of land of M/s Chandramauli Developers Pvt. Ltd. has not materialized as the cheque issued by the said party were not honoured and therefore sale deed became invalid and was cancelled and consequently no capital gain was shown in the return of income. Therefore even on merit the revenue has no case

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]

43,27,813/- for sale of land of M/s Chandramauli Developers Pvt. Ltd. has not materialized as the cheque issued by the said party were not honoured and therefore sale deed became invalid and was cancelled and consequently no capital gain was shown in the return of income. Therefore even on merit the revenue has no case

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

43,200/-. The Id. AO noted that the\nassessee has relinquished the rights over his share of land in terms\nof the land development agreement and the Provisions of Section\n53A of transfer of property Act are attracted and capital gain

SITARAM SULTANIA,PATNA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIR-6, PATNA, PATNA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 50C(2) of the Act at Rs. 86,72,000/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer computed the short-term capital gain at Rs. 25,43

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

capital gains chargeable under section 45; (vii) the profits and gains of any business of insurance carried on by a mutual insurance company or by a co- operative society, computed in accordance with section 44 or any surplus taken to be such profits and gains by virtue of provisions contained in the First Schedule; (viia) the profits and gains

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

Appeal is allowed\nfor statistical purposes

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 Tax (Appeal) as well as the Id.\nassessing officer, without given sufficient opportunity, has erred in estimating the\nprofit at Rs.1

ZAIMUR RAHMAN,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 115BBE of the Act and assessed the same under the Act. I.T.A. No.: 321/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Zaimur Rahman. 11. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer, without giving any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, has erred in holding that Rs.11,43,600 shown as sales of agricultural produce

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

43,10,424/- under the head ‘hire charges’ and failed to deduct TDS on such payment, therefore, these payments are not to be allowed as a deduction to the assessee under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act. He further submitted that effort at the end of the assessee was to frustrate the ld. Assessing Officer for conducting