ASHA DEVI L/H OF LATE GYAN CHAND PRASAD,PATNA vs. PR.CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

46(1). The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("New Act of 2013") came into force from January, 2014 repealing the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("LA Act 1894"). Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Retrospective Application: Provisions under the 2013 Act Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act provides that

MANOJ KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 4(4), PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

section 46 of the RFCTLARR Act says otherwise but the assessee unable to produce the requisite documents to justify the exemption as claimed by the assessee in his submission and grounds of appeal taken to the assessee. The ld. Counsel is also unable to demonstrate that the circular issued by the CBDT noted supra is squarely applicable 9. Considering

ITO, WARD-4(1), PATNA vs. JAGDISH RAY, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of revenue-ITA No

2. That the appellant assessee is an agriculturist and filed his return of income on 26-06-2014 showing total income 4. ITA No.102/Pat/20 AY 2014-15 & CO No.01/Pat/2021 (ITA No. 102/Pat/20) AY 2014-15 Jagdish Ray at @ Rs. 92,350 only. The source of Income was income from other source only. 3. That the appellant assessee has agricultural land

KIRAN JAISWAL,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 4(5), PATNA

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

capital gain merely on the ground that the appellant has sold land for Rs.31,25,000 the estimated cost of acquisition whereof would be Rs.2,46,000 notwithstanding the fact that the whole of the sale proceeds were invested in purchase of land and construction of residential house there on and that the same were specifically exempt under Section

RAVI BHUSHAN VERMA,BEGUSARAI vs. CPC, BENGALURU

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

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

capital gain, all the grounds of appeal are clubbed together for the sake of convenience and disposed off as under: 4.1. In this case, the appellant submitted that during the A.Y.2019-20, the appellant had sold his ancestral property along with his four brothers/cousins/nephew and the total consideration for the whole of the property was Rs.66,60,000/- out of which