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]

disallowed. It is not out of place to bring it on record that the assessee was liable to declare Long Term Capital Gains

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]

disallowed. It is not out of place to bring it on record that the assessee was liable to declare Long Term Capital Gains

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]

disallowed. It is not out of place to bring it on record that the assessee was liable to declare Long Term Capital Gains

ANUP KUMAR HUF,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENT. CIR-1, PATNA, 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. 192/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Anup Kumar Huf,…………………...….………Appellant 4A, Narayan Nilayam Apartment, Road No. 6 Rajendra Nagar, Patna-800016 Bihar [Pan:Aahha5422R] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax....Respondent Central Circle-1, Patna

long-term capital gain. The assessee was asked to submit explanation. The assessee stated in its written reply that it sold the script of M/s. Kailash Auto and on that transaction, it claimed the exemption on LTCG. Being not satisfied, the ld. Assessing Officer disallowed

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

long term capital gain by disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 54. The details of the order of AO and basis

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

Gain and not under ‘Income from Other Sources’ and should have accepted the appellant's calculation of long term capital loss arising from sale of property amounting to Rs.2,17,363/- . The appellant has no objections to the disallowance

PRABHAT KUMAR,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA

Appeal is allowed\nfor statistical purposes

disallowing and adding back the index cost of improvement to\nthe tune of Rs.1,72,34,608 (Actual cost of improvement Rs.12,01,200 X 264/184)\nclaimed by the appellant in its return of income for the purpose of long term capital\ngain and taxing the same as capital gain

LAVANYA ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ITW WARD 2 (1) PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 342/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Lavanya Estates Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer, Kasim Colonydargah Road Ward 2(1), Mahendru, Sultanganj, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dakbanglow, Patna-800 001 Patna, Bihar-800 006 [Pan : Aadcl0333R] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

disallowances, the assessee would be given a fair opportunity to explain his position on the proposed additions/disallowances in accordance with the principle of natural justice. In this regard, the Assessing Officer shall issue an appropriate show-cause notice duly indicating the reasons for the proposed additions/disallowances along with necessary evidences/ reasons forming the basis of the same. Before passing

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.

long term capital gain was derived. 7. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in holding that the appellant has claimed construction of new residential house on the land purchased during F.Y. 2017-18 contrary to the submission dated 26/04/2023 and 14/05/2025 made before him. 8. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in not adjudicating