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

1) Circumstances of the case in confirming the assessment made by the Ld. A.O made u/s 144 r.w.s 147 is bad in law and facts. For that, on the fact & circumstances of the case, the learned (2) Addl/JCIT(A) has erred in Law and on facts and to appreciate the factum that registration of JDA is not transaction and hence

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

1 to 4 pertain to the single issue of addition of capital gain of Rs.64,02,144/- by following the provisions of Section 50C of the Act and the same is adjudicated as under:- ITA No.: 18/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Lalmuni Devi. 5.1. On receipt of information under section 133(6) of the Act in terms of copies

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

sections 54, 54B and 54F of the Act and as stated in the appeal order that the assessee’s case does not fall under Capital Gains and hence the claim u/s 54F of the Act was not allowed as the land in question is based to the Government of Bihar and the money received by the assessee falls under

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

capital gain of Rs. 2,58,34,383/- shown by the assessee in the return of income. However, the exemption u/s 54 of the Act was not allowed as the immovable property shown by the assessee was not a residential house. Further, the exemption u/s 54F of the Act was also not allowed as the assessee neither claimed any exemption

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

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

AMRENDRA PRATAP SINGH,VARANASI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3(1), GAYA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1, Varanasi, notwithstanding the fact that the said amount was from sale of ancestral agricultural land which was outside the ambit of income tax more particularly capital gain under the Act. 11. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer has erred in holding that the interest aggregating to Rs.1

VEENA MISHRA THROUGH NITISH MISHRA,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENT.CIR-1, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 234A, 234B and 234C of the income tax Act, 1961 on the total income as computed in the orders of assessment and Ld. CIT Appeal erred in confirming the same. 15. For that the order of the assessment so passed by the assessing officer and the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT Appeal is otherwise arbitrary and illegal

SHIVENDU SHEKHAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(5), PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

54,480/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the Assessing Officer that the assessee along with his brother were the owner and in possession of 2 acres and 14 guntas of land

SHIVENDU SHEKHAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD6(5), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

54,480/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the Assessing Officer that the assessee along with his brother were the owner and in possession of 2 acres and 14 guntas of 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 54

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

54,569, long- term 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

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. SH. SURESH , PATNA

gain of transfer of lands as arose to the assesse. (ii) Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding Rupam Tower as Residential House and has erred in allowing deduction u/s 54 to the LTCG arising to the assessee. (iii) Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the claim of the assessee regarding the cost of construction of the Rupam Tower building

ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA vs. M/S SUN COMTECH PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

54 PM SELL 1 1149.80 250 287450.00 0 5.2. The assessee was confronted with the above findings which emerged from the information received from the NMCE, Ahmedabad. Copy of ledger account of few such counter parties were provided to the assessee as per the following details: s. Product Date Broker Counter Party Counter Party Broker No. 21/03/2011 Marina Commotrade

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S TAKSHILA EDUCATIONAL SOCITY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

1 has two sub-grounds, whereas Ground No. 2 has six sub-grounds. Basically grievance of the Revenue revolves around two-folds, but it has pleaded peripheral arguments by way of sub-grounds. 4. The main grievance of the Revenue is as under:- (a) Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.99,15,000/-, which was added