DHARMAVIR KUMAR,PATNA vs. DC/AC CIRCLE 4, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dharmavir Kumar Dc/Acit, Circle-4, C/O Naseeb Prasad, Income Tax Department, Lok Paithaninathpur,Narayan Chak, Nayak Jai Prakash Bhavan, New Vs. Phulwari. Dak Bunglow Road, Bihar-800002 Patna-800001, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Avzpk4382P Assessee By : Shri Sudeep Sinha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2025

gains. 3. For that section 50C is not a charging section. It simply says what would be the full consideration for the purpose of section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to compute the income chargeable under head capital

SHARDINDU PRASAD SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

50C of the income Tax Act, 1961 nor they are otherwise attracted in the present case. 16. Ld. AO has erred in determining LTCG at 1,24,95,128/- as against value of land of 54,40,000/- as on date of agreement. 17. Ld. AO has failed to consider that the capital gain pursuant to development agreement will arise

LALMUNI DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 50C of the Income Tax Act should be applied based on this registered date. In view of the facts discussed above, it is noted that the appellant entered into and registered the joint development agreement during the FY 2012-13 and failed to offer to tax the capital gain arising out of this transaction. Hence I reject the contention

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

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.64,50,000/- without referring the matter to the valuation authority as per section 50C(2) of the Act. The ld. Assessing Officer has added Rs.13,60,000/- being

ALOK KUMAR,ARRAH vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), ARRAH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

3 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Alok Kumar the purpose of computing capital gain under section 48 of the Income Tax Act, the full value of the property would be construed at Rs.150/-. This deeming fiction is provided in section 50C

SHRI SHAH AFROZE HOSSAIN,BHAGALPUR vs. DY. CIT, CENT, CIR-2, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.711/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Shri Shah Afroze Hossain.….…………………....…………………....Appellant 12, Shahganjhi, Habibpur, Bhagalpur, Bihar-812006. [Pan: Aapph1112D] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2, Patna..………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. Shadab Ahmed, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 30, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Patna-3 (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22.10.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2022–23 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹75,56,770, Comprising The Income From Business Of ₹6,54,569, Long- Term Capital Gains: ₹49,60,293 & Income From Other Sources Of ₹19,35,912. A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Act Was Carried Out On 29.12.2022 At The Residential & Business Premises Of The Assessee Pursuant To A Warrant Of Authorisation Issued By The Director Of Investigation, Patna. During The Course Of The Search

capital gains: ₹49,60,293 and income from other sources of ₹19,35,912. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out on 29.12.2022 at the residential and business premises of the assessee pursuant to a warrant of authorisation issued by the Director of Investigation, Patna. During the course of the search, I.T.A. No.711/PAT/2024

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

HAMID ALI,ROHTAS vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (4), SASARAM

In the result, ITA No.356/Pat/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.356 & 357/Pat/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Hamid Ali…..……………..……………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Gulam Murtaza Zakki Shaheed, Sasaram, Rohtas, Bihar – 821115. [Pan: Atppa8563N] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Sasaram.…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Adv. & Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Madhumita Roy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 12.12.2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi Arising Out Of The Orders Dated 23.02.2021 & 23.08.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) & U/S 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Respectively For Assessment Year 2018-19. Ita No.356/Pat/2025 Relates To Quantum Order Whereas Ita No.357/Pat/2025 Relates To Penalty Order.

3. ITA No.356/Pat/2025 - The brief facts leading to the case are that the assessee in his return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19 declared long-term capital gains of Rs.1,90,224/- on sale of immovable property. He has shown total sale consideration of Rs.27,00,000/- and claimed index cost of acquisition of Rs.9,45,200/- and index

HAMID ALI,ROHTAS vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (4), SASARAM

In the result, ITA No.356/Pat/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.356 & 357/Pat/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Hamid Ali…..……………..……………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Gulam Murtaza Zakki Shaheed, Sasaram, Rohtas, Bihar – 821115. [Pan: Atppa8563N] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Sasaram.…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Adv. & Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Madhumita Roy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 12.12.2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi Arising Out Of The Orders Dated 23.02.2021 & 23.08.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) & U/S 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Respectively For Assessment Year 2018-19. Ita No.356/Pat/2025 Relates To Quantum Order Whereas Ita No.357/Pat/2025 Relates To Penalty Order.

3. ITA No.356/Pat/2025 - The brief facts leading to the case are that the assessee in his return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19 declared long-term capital gains of Rs.1,90,224/- on sale of immovable property. He has shown total sale consideration of Rs.27,00,000/- and claimed index cost of acquisition of Rs.9,45,200/- and index

BINOD KUMAR KEDIA,GOPALGANJ vs. ITO, WARD- 2 (4), SIWAN

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. 72/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Binod Kumar Kedia,……………...…….…………Appellant S/O Latejeevan Ram Kedia, Marwari Mohalla, Gopalganj-841428, Bihar [Pan:Afhpk1798P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………....Respondent Ward-2(4), Siwan Appearances By: Shri K.P. Jalan, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: May 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: July 28, 2025 O R D E R

3. That on appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) vide order dated 18.12.2018 in Appel No. 216/JSR/2017-18 has been pleased to direct the Assessing Officer to refer the matter to Departmental Valuation Cell and then work out the short-0term capital gain in terms of provisions of section 50C

PRAMOD KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD- 6(5), PATNA

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

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

section 50C of the act when the consideration for transfer of property was indeterminate. (v) That the Id CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in determining the consideration for transfer of the basis of notional figure. (vi) The Id CIT(A], NFAC, Delhi erred in computing the capital gain on the basis of such notional value as determined

ALOK KUMAR,MADHEPURA vs. ITO WARD 3(5), SAHARSA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraalok Kumar, Ito Ward-3(5), S/O Sri Dasrath Mehata, Saharsha Village- Ganeshpur, M.S. Vs Yogiraj, Purani Madhepura, Dist- Madhepura – 852116 (Bihar) (Pan: Bpkpk1186D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : K.P. Jalan, Ar Respondent By : Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 14.05.2024. 2 Alok Kumar, Ay: 2012-13 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the record are the assessee is an individual and has been assessed to tax since long and is deriving income from Salary & Interest etc. The assessment was reopened for verification of taxability of capital gains arising on sale of land worth ₹1,66,07,000/- as the assessee was found

SATYA NARAYAN 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 & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2015-16

gains at Rs.1,34,97,643/-. Aggrieved with this case, the assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A). However, it was recorded on pages 3 and 4 of the impugned order that five notices given to the assessee fixing the dates of hearing, were not responded. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead to pass an ex parte order by confirming