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]

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 ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya

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]

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 ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya

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]

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 ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya

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]

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 ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya

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]

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 ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya

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 gain u/s 45. For that, on the fact & circumstances of the case, the learned (3) Addl/JCIT(A) has erred in Law and on facts and failed to appreciate that no possession was transferred as clearly stated in JDA that possession will only be transferred after sanction of Planned Layout and statutory permission are obtained and further Partition deed between

VINOD YADAV,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (3), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

Section 53A of transfer of property\nAct and capital gain has arisen from transfer of property u/s 2(47)(ii)\n& 24(47)(v) of the Act. The assessee filed the written submission\nbefore the Id. AO however, finally, the Id. AO computed the capital gain\narising from the said transfer at ₹3,45

PUSHPA KUMARI,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 7/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Pushpa Kumari,…………………..…...…………Appellant Rashtiriya Ganj, Station Road, Phulwari Sharif, Patna-801505, Bihar [Pan:Agmpk8844Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…..………………………...Respondent Ward-6(2), Patna Appearances By: Shri Prasoon Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2024 O R D E R

capital gains by invoking the provisions of section 45 read with section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. 3

VIBHUTI BHUSHAN SINHA,DWARKA 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

3 ITR 437 (SC)L Therefore. the assessment U/s. 144/147 is ab-initio void assessment or a nullity for want of valid jurisdiction. 7. For that, on the fact & circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer was absolutely wrong in determining the taxation of long term capital gain on the presumption of deemed transfer of 55% of the land

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

3 ITR 437 (SC)L Therefore. the assessment U/s. 144/147 is ab-initio void assessment or a nullity for want of valid jurisdiction. 7. For that, on the fact & circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer was absolutely wrong in determining the taxation of long term capital gain on the presumption of deemed transfer of 55% of the land

BAIJU ROY,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-4(2), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

sections and on the basis of report received from the Land Acquisition Officer and Circle Officer, the land in question is taxable u/s 45(5) of the Income-tax Act,1961 as Capital Gain. However, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 54B of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on account of purchase of agriculture land and Rs.25

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

DIPAK KUMAR SINGH & SONS HUF,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the delay was on account of ignorance of law and the assessee was alerted for filing the appeal only when they received a notice proposing levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the issue of delayed filing with the help of several authorities on the subject and has declined to condone the said delay due to which the appeal was dismissed. 3.1 Further aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is

45 (5A) inserted by the Finance Act, 2017 which contemplate chargeability to capital gains only in the year in which a certificate of completion for whole or part of the project is issued by a competent authority and that the provisions being beneficial in nature were retrospective in operation and that on such construction no such certificate of completion having

SANJU SINHA,PATNA vs. ITO WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Dr. Manish Borad, Am Sanju Sinha, Ito, Ward 6(1) Khajpura, B. V College, Patna-800 001 Khajpura, Patna-800014, Vs. Bihar Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Apkps0784A Assessee By : Shri Prasoon Kr., Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2024

capital gain on hypothetical sell consideration without looking to the fact available on record and also without looking to the provision of section 45 read with section 2 (47) of the Income Tax Act, as such, the ld. Assessing officer and the ld. Commissioner had levied tax on hypothetical income which is impermissible under the Act. 3

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

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

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 and just

ANUP KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD 6(4), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 401/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Anup Kumar,……………..………….…….....……Appellant Sultanpur, Danapur, Patna-801503, Bihar [Pan:Cdupk6764J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………….Respondent Ward-6(4), Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, New Dak Bunglow, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Alok Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

section 147 of the Income Tax Act on 28.11.2019 assessing the long-term capital gain at Rs.51,45,000/- and deducted the tax on LTCG @ 20%, i.e. Rs.10,29,000/-, Education Cess @ 3

SAROJ DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

3. Brief facts of the case as mentioned in the assessment order are that the assessee (land owner) had entered into a land development agreement between the owners of the land and the developers to construct immovable property in terms of buildings and land appurtenant thereto. On receipt of information u/s 133(6) of the Act in terms of copies

SUBODH KUMAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO WARD -6(2), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 258/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Subodh Kumar Singh,…………………..…………Appellant B-1, Vaishavi Apartment, Behind Petrol Pump, Sadagaut Ashram, Patna-800010, Bihar [Pan:Cdfps1206N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…..…………………………..Respondent Ward-6(2), Patna, Bihar Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashok Kumar, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 10, 2024 O R D E R

45 and 48 of the Income Tax Act was attracted. Accordingly, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 22.10.2018 but the assessee did not comply with the notice. Subsequently notices under section 142(1) of the Act dated 12.02.2019 and dated 26.08.2019 were issued but the assessee did not comply. Thereafter a show-cause notice