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]

1) giving show cause to the assessee as to why the capital gain on sale of property should not be added to the income of the assessee. Considering these facts and circumstances it is apparent from the records before us that no notice has been issued and served on the assessee . In our opinion where no notice

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]

1) giving show cause to the assessee as to why the capital gain on sale of property should not be added to the income of the assessee. Considering these facts and circumstances it is apparent from the records before us that no notice has been issued and served on the assessee . In our opinion where no notice

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]

1) giving show cause to the assessee as to why the capital gain on sale of property should not be added to the income of the assessee. Considering these facts and circumstances it is apparent from the records before us that no notice has been issued and served on the assessee . In our opinion where no notice

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

43,200/-\n8) Total value of consideration of property (higher of 6 & 7 applicable Fs.1,33,85,300/-\nas per Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1951)\n9) Less: Indexed cost of land\n10) Long Term Capital Gain for tax purpose 1

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

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

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)

1,20,00,000/-. Accord- ingly, the case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. The assessee computed Short Term Capital Gain and duly showed the same in the return of in- come. Finally, the Assessing Officer computed short term capital gain by taking sale consideration

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

1) passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-16, by the ld. assessing officer at Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, is bad both in law and on facts. 4. For that the appellant was not given any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, to put forth his contentions and place evidences henceforth

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

Appeal is allowed\nfor statistical purposes

43 days in this\nmatter. The assessee has filed a petition requesting for condonation of the\nsaid delay as under:\n“1. That this is an application for condonation of delay in the filing of the instant\nappeal.\n2. That the petitioner states that the impugned order was passed on 17.11.2023 by\nthe Id Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal