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 on transfer of land without allowing any cost of acquisition and the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹2,47,38,940/- u/s 143(3) of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who perused the assessment order, has reproduced the provisions of sections 54

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

capital gain based on presumption only. For that, on the fact & circumstances of the case, the learned (5) Addl/JCIT(A) has erred in Law and on facts and completely in 4 Renu Devi providing a beneficial construction of Section 2(47) and Interpreted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Assessee. (6) For that, on the fact & circumstances

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 144 in last para of the assessment order appears to be an inadvertent mistake which needs to be ignored. Therefore, this ground is dismissed. 6.1 Ground Nos. 2 & 3 pertain to addition of Rs. 2,58,34,383/- as long term capital gain by disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 54

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

2. Section 55. I have purchased land in year 1977 for Rs. 9500. However my cost of acquisition should be taken as lower of stamp duty value and ITA No.: 18/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Lalmuni Devi. FMV as on 01-04-2001, which comes Rs. 3050000. And at the same time indexation was not allowed. 3. Cost of improvement

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

2) of the Act during the course of assessment proceedings. 6. For that the entire consideration received on sale of land has been invested over construction of the house well within the stipulated time before 31.07.2014 and therefore no capital gain is chargeable as per the provision of 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

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

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

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

2. For that the appellate order dated 15/01/2025 bearing DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072165748(1) passed under Section 250 of I.T.A. No.: 101/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Amrendra Pratap Singh. the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act) for the Assessment Year 2012-13 by the ld. First Appellate Authority, viz, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) at National Faceless

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

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

capital gain on sale of value of two vehicles and a flat. (b) Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.20,13,54,800/-, which was added by the ld. Assessing Officer with the aid of section 13(3) read with section 13(2

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

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