HARIHAR PRASAD,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 4 (4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gains and the deduction claimed under section 54B/54F of the Act were also not allowed. Thus, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and appeal is remanded to him to adjudicate the issues afresh after considering the evidence to be filed by the assessee and after granting an opportunity of being heard

KRIPA SHANKER,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gains was chargeable as per the provisions of section 54F of the Act. As regards the delay in filing the appeal, it was submitted that the assessee was not aware that the appeal order had been passed. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the appellate authority and requested that the same may be confirmed. 6. We have

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

capital gains at ₹81,66,750/-, which was added to the total income as per the return shown at ₹1,60,000/- and the total income was assessed at ₹83,26,750/-. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who issued several notices of hearing to the assessee and since there

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