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]

54F against the declared long term capital gain on certain long term gain during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO observed that the assessee has taken unsecured loan of Rs. 34,00,000/- and accordingly called upon the assessee to furnish the details of names and addresses of the persons along with confirmation letters, bank statements and other evidences

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]

54F against the declared long term capital gain on certain long term gain during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO observed that the assessee has taken unsecured loan of Rs. 34,00,000/- and accordingly called upon the assessee to furnish the details of names and addresses of the persons along with confirmation letters, bank statements and other evidences

KUMAR ARUNODAYA,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6, PATNA [NEW – DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, PATNA], 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]

54F against the declared long term capital gain on certain long term gain during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO observed that the assessee has taken unsecured loan of Rs. 34,00,000/- and accordingly called upon the assessee to furnish the details of names and addresses of the persons along with confirmation letters, bank statements and other evidences

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]

54F against the declared long term capital gain on certain long term gain during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO observed that the assessee has taken unsecured loan of Rs. 34,00,000/- and accordingly called upon the assessee to furnish the details of names and addresses of the persons along with confirmation letters, bank statements and other evidences

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]

54F against the declared long term capital gain on certain long term gain during the course of assessment proceedings. The AO observed that the assessee has taken unsecured loan of Rs. 34,00,000/- and accordingly called upon the assessee to furnish the details of names and addresses of the persons along with confirmation letters, bank statements and other evidences

HARI NARAYAN GUPTA (HUF),PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (5), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1,33,85,300/- as long-term capital gain, alleging a transfer of property under the LDA. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.", "held": "The Tribunal held that no transfer of property occurred within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act because the LDA did not involve the transfer of ownership rights or possession

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

VISHWAMBHAR CHAUDHARI,KATIHAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), KATIHAR

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

1,53,27,967/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, noting the assessee did not utilize opportunities for presenting facts.", "held": "The tribunal observed that the assessee claimed the land was agricultural and thus exempt from capital gains tax under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The tribunal felt that substantive justice required remanding the case back

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

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

54F of the Income Tax Act has been\ndecided by the Tribunal after considering the relevant fact that the assessing officer had\nalso charged capital gain in the year 1999- 2000 and hence, there would not be any\nscope to hold that the transfer of land had taken place in 1991 as claimed by the\nDepartment. The nature of development

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

AJAY KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (3), PATNA, PATNA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

section 54F of the IT Act, 1961 then no Capital Gain Tax would have been payable. 10. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the Assessing Officer has erred in holding that the cost of the land under question at NIL. 11. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the Assessing Officer has erred

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

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

BAIJU ROY,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-4(2), PATNA

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

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

sections and on the basis of report received from the Land Acquisition Officer and Circle Officer, the land in question is taxable u/s 45(5) of the Income-tax Act,1961 as Capital Gain. However, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 54B of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on account of purchase of agriculture land and Rs.25,05,763/-/-u/s 54F

DIPAK KUMAR SINGH & SONS HUF,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2), PATNA

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee claimed that the delay was on account of ignorance of law and the assessee was alerted for filing the appeal only when they received a notice proposing levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has discussed the issue of delayed filing with the help of several authorities on the subject and has declined to condone the said delay due to which the appeal was dismissed. 3.1 Further aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is

54F of the Act. 6. For that the learned assessing officer erred in computing income from capital gains solely on the basis of the development agreement without taking notice of Section 45 (5A) inserted by the Finance Act, 2017 which contemplate chargeability to capital gains only in the year in which a certificate of completion for whole or part

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

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

Bench: the sale of immovable properties on which long term capital gain was derived.

1)(a) of the Act and subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee on the reason that the capital gains deduction claimed thereafter, other statutory notices were issued to the assessee and the assessee submitted part in reply. on 15.04.2021 a issued show cause notice to the assessee

PANCHAM PAL,PATNA vs. I.T.O, WARD- 6 (4), PATNA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal and upholding the order passed by the A.O. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order which is in violation of provisions of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. 3. For that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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:

section, is a mistake which could not be curable u/s 292BB, therefore prayed only on this deficiency in the order, it can be annulled & set aside. Ld CIT (A) upholds assessment order by putting the assessment year A/Y: 2017-18 on the face of assessment order in place of correctly it was A/Y: 2012-13, followed by reminder notice with