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]

6. CIT Vs. Bihari Lal Agrawal[2013] 33 taxmann.com 553 (Allahabad); 1. ITO Vs. DD Ahuja & Brothers [2014] 45 taxmann.com336(Lucknow-trib.); 2. G.N.Mohan Raju Vs. ITO[2015] 57 taxmann.com 415 (Bangalore-Trib.); 3. Mohinder Kumar Chhabra Vs. ITO [2014] 48 taxman.com 120(Delhi-Trib.) In view of the above judgments, I hereby quash the assessment made on10.12.2019

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]

6. CIT Vs. Bihari Lal Agrawal[2013] 33 taxmann.com 553 (Allahabad); 1. ITO Vs. DD Ahuja & Brothers [2014] 45 taxmann.com336(Lucknow-trib.); 2. G.N.Mohan Raju Vs. ITO[2015] 57 taxmann.com 415 (Bangalore-Trib.); 3. Mohinder Kumar Chhabra Vs. ITO [2014] 48 taxman.com 120(Delhi-Trib.) In view of the above judgments, I hereby quash the assessment made on10.12.2019

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]

6. CIT Vs. Bihari Lal Agrawal[2013] 33 taxmann.com 553 (Allahabad); 1. ITO Vs. DD Ahuja & Brothers [2014] 45 taxmann.com336(Lucknow-trib.); 2. G.N.Mohan Raju Vs. ITO[2015] 57 taxmann.com 415 (Bangalore-Trib.); 3. Mohinder Kumar Chhabra Vs. ITO [2014] 48 taxman.com 120(Delhi-Trib.) In view of the above judgments, I hereby quash the assessment made on10.12.2019

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

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. 25,43,630/- on the basis of DVO report and added the same to the in- come of the assessee. We note that the DVO in its report dated 26.03.2015 categorically mentioned the method of valuation

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.1,12,71,950 (@ 6

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

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

6. For that the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the order of the ld. assessing officer is wholly perverse in as much as the same are contrary to and at variance with the materials available on record. 7. For that the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well