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]

capital gain was not included in the return of income on the ground that the said sale deed was cancelled as per terms and conditions agreed between the assessee and the buyer of property. The Ld. A.R also submitted that no notice has been issued and served upon the assessee to invoke the provisions of section

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]

capital gain was not included in the return of income on the ground that the said sale deed was cancelled as per terms and conditions agreed between the assessee and the buyer of property. The Ld. A.R also submitted that no notice has been issued and served upon the assessee to invoke the provisions of section

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]

capital gain was not included in the return of income on the ground that the said sale deed was cancelled as per terms and conditions agreed between the assessee and the buyer of property. The Ld. A.R also submitted that no notice has been issued and served upon the assessee to invoke the provisions of section

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]

capital gain was not included in the return of income on the ground that the said sale deed was cancelled as per terms and conditions agreed between the assessee and the buyer of property. The Ld. A.R also submitted that no notice has been issued and served upon the assessee to invoke the provisions of section

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

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

50% share of the constructed area. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this as a transfer of property and computed long-term capital gains. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.", "held": "The Tribunal held that no transfer of property had taken place as per the meaning of Section

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

section 54 F of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7. For that the Learned A.O. has taken the estimated cost of acquisition of the land at Rs.10,000 and the same has been deducted from the sale consideration without indexation, which is wrong. 8. For that the Learned A.O. has wrongly computed the long - term capital gain at Rs.27,50

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

In the result, the appeal of revenue-ITA No

capital gain (LTCG) arising out of compensation against the land acquisition treating as exempt from tax. 6. Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to following written submissions which were filed before the ld. CIT(A):-: 1. That the above appeal is directed against the demand notice issued by Income Tax Officer Ward 4(4), Patna dated

SEEMA SRIVASTAVA,PATNA vs. ITO,DC/AC-6, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

sections. 9. For that the appellant reserves its right to furnish detailed written submission along with documents and evidences on or before date of hearing. 10. For that the appellant may be given opportunity of personal hearing physically/virtually at the time of hearing of the appeal. 11. For that the whole order is bad in fact

SANJIV KUMAR SINGH,HATHINI vs. NFAC, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 323/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Sanjiv Kumar Singh,………………...…………Appellant 23 S/O. Barhma Singh, At Po Hathni, Rohitas-802215, Bihar [Pan:Bmsps6887A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…..………………………...Respondent Nfac, New Delhi Appearances By: Smt. Smriti Singh, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 03, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2024 O R D E R

section 144B of the Act assessing the total income of Rs.20,94,940/- by making an addition of Rs.13,60,000/- as short-term capital gains. The addition of Rs.13,60,000/- was made on account of sale of property during the year under consideration wherein the value of the property has been estimated at Rs.64,50

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Assessment Year : 2015-16 Punam Sinha, Near Shiv Mandir, Vs. Ito, Ward 6(1), Patna Khajpura, Patna-800014,Bihar Pan/Gir No. Ainps 1974 Q (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025 O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 06.06.2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Patna -2/11391/2019-20 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 301 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Stating That At The Time Of Ld Cit(A) Passed The Order, The Assessee Was Suffering From Spine Diseases & Also Eye Disease I.E. Glucoma. Due To This Fact, She Was Not Unable To Look After Her Day-To-Day Business. It Is Also Stated That Assessee Being A Lady Was Not Conversant With P A G E 1 | 5 Assessment Year : 2015-16

section 2(47) (v) 45 and 48 of the Act. Accordingly, the AO computed the capital gain of Rs.13,50

JAI PRAKASH SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) Assessment Year : 2015-16 Jai Prakash Singh, Near Shiv Vs. Ito, Ward 6(1), Patna Mandir, Khajpura, Patna- 800014, Bihar Pan/Gir No. Ainps 1974 Q (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kumar Singhal, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/09/2025 O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), New Delhi Nfac), Delhi Dated 21.08.2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Patna -1/11368/2019-20 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 239 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition Stating That The Assessee Being A Senior Citizen & Was Not Conversant With The Computer System. The Notices Were Issued To The Assessee By The Ld Cit(A) In The Income Tax Portal & Since The Assessee Was Not Aware Of The Notices, No Submissions As Well As Paper Book Was Filed.

section 2(47) (v) 45 and 48 of he Act. Accordingly, the AO computed the capital gain of Rs.13,50

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

50, the Ld. AO estimated the super built up area under the ownership of the land owner at 5,444.50 sq. ft., applied the provisions of section 53A of the T.P. Act, the provisions of Income Tax Act, the legal literature available in this regard and the judicial pronouncements and estimated the long-term capital gains

GYASUDDIN MOHAMMAD ANSARI,PURNIA vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (3), PURNEA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 80 E had been wrongly claimed. In fact, the assessee had sold a commercial is of land and furnish the working of capital loss of ₹ 240,000 and relied upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of gets a (India) Ltd vs CIT. The AO did not accept the contention of the assessee as according

SHIVAM ANAND,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD 6(5), PATNA

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

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

50% of land owned by the assessee stands at Rs. 2,75,500/- The ld. AO considering the fact of the information opined that case of the assessee attracted the provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of the Property Act, the capital gains

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

section 2(47) of the IT Act and had either earned income or income were accrued in the assessment year in question under capital gain. Sanju Sinha; A.Y. 2015-16 6. For that the assessing office neither recorded valid reason nor the JCIT and Commissioner accorded valid sanction as prescribed undersection 151 of the Act, as such, whole

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

50% of the total land area of 45,454.86 sq. ft. owned by the appellant was to be constructed upon by the land developer. As pe the registered Land Development Agreement, the total value of the land was Rs.9,90,84,600/- and the total value of share owned by the appellant was Rs.1,89,13,162/-. As a bundle

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 234B for the period from 01.04.2016 to November, 2019 on total long-term capital gain tax, i.e. Rs.10,59,870/- @ 44%, i.e. Rs.4,66,343/- , which aggregated to Rs.19,50

SUDHIR KUMAR TULI,BIHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BIHAR

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.173/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sudhir Kumar Tuli..……………..………. …………………....Appellant B-12, Anjali Apartment Boring Road Behind Alankar Place, Patna - 800001. Bihar.. [Pan: Actpt9461D] Vs. Ito, Patna ………….......…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Kaushal Kr. Ar, ., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.02.2025 Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Relating To The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Entered Into A Land Development Agreement With A Builder For Development Of His Land. As Per The Terms Of The Agreement, No Monetary Consideration Was To Be Received By The Assessee Except For Three Residential Flats To Be Allotted To Him Upon Completion Of The Project. The Builder, After Development, Was To Become The Absolute Owner Of His Share In The Project & Would Thereafter Be Entitled To Enter Into Agreements For Sale In Respect Of Such Share. During The Course Of Proceedings, In Response To A Notice Issued

Sections 144 and 147, determining long-term capital gain (LTCG) at ₹41,50,114/- and adding the same to the total