ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. NUZHAT NASREEN, L/H AHMAD ASHFAQUEKARIM OF NUZHAT NASREEN, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

House No. B-76, Khesara No. 635/245, Village Jasola, New Delhi-110025 construction is in progress but name of the owner of the property could not be ascertained from local enquiry. • Shri Pratap Singh, Rajesh Kr. And Ranveer Kr. Singh (all sons of Moolchand Chauhan) could not be traced on the address as furnished by the assessee. • Shri

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S AL-KARIM EDUCATIONAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

House No. B-76, Khesara No. 635/245, Village Jasola, New Delhi-110025 construction is in progress but name of the owner of the property could not be ascertained from local enquiry. • Shri Pratap Singh, Rajesh Kr. And Ranveer Kr. Singh (all sons of Moolchand Chauhan) could not be traced on the address as furnished by the assessee. • Shri

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

exemption u/s 54 of the Act was not allowed as the immovable property shown by the assessee was not a residential house

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

exempted from tax as per section 96 of RFCTLARR Act. It was further explained that the assessee has purchased four landed properties and also constructed residential house

GRAM NIRMAN MANDAL,NAWADA vs. DC/AC EXEMPTION, CIR, PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house property. The total income was assessed at ₹ 3,16,98,714/-. 5. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals), who considered the facts of the case and noted that despite issuing four notices for hearing, no reply was filed, therefore, the appeal was dismissed on account of non-prosecution. 6. Aggrieved

DHARMENDRA KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 4(2), 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. 709/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Dharmendra Kumar,…………………...….………Appellant E/74, Krishna Building, Patliputra Road, Patna-800013, Bihar [Pan:Anppk4627D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-4(2), Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 4Th Floor, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-800001, Bihar

exempt period. He further submitted that the assessee was not aware of the date of hearing before the ld. CIT(Appeals). Therefore, the assessee was not in a position to appear before the ld. CIT(Appeals), but the ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee ex-parte. Therefore he pleaded to condone the delay. 3. Considering

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

exempt u/s 54 of the Act on sale of property. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the AO that the assessee was simply a house

DR. JAGANNATH MISHRA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R. L. Reddy, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

exempt u/s 54 of the Act on sale of property. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the AO that the assessee was simply a house

DR. JAGANNATH MISHRA THROUGH L/H NITISH MISHRA,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R. L. Reddy, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

exempt u/s 54 of the Act on sale of property. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the AO that the assessee was simply a house

DR. JAGANNATH MISHRA THROUGH L/H NITISH MISHRA,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R. L. Reddy, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

exempt u/s 54 of the Act on sale of property. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the AO that the assessee was simply a house

SMT. VEENA MISHRA THROUGH NITISH MISHRA,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R. L. Reddy, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

exempt u/s 54 of the Act on sale of property. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the AO that the assessee was simply a house

SMT. VEENA MISHRA THROUGH NITISH MISHRA,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R. L. Reddy, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

exempt u/s 54 of the Act on sale of property. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the AO that the assessee was simply a house

SMT. VEENA MISHRA THROUGH NITISH MISHRA,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R. L. Reddy, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

exempt u/s 54 of the Act on sale of property. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the AO that the assessee was simply a house

DR. JAGANNATH MISHRA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R. L. Reddy, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

exempt u/s 54 of the Act on sale of property. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the AO that the assessee was simply a house

DR. JAGANNATH MISHRA THROUGH L/H NITISH MISHRA,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R. L. Reddy, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

exempt u/s 54 of the Act on sale of property. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the AO that the assessee was simply a house

KIRAN JAISWAL,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 4(5), PATNA

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

property during the relevant assessment year. It is recorded by the Ld. AO that initially some submissions were made in response to notices issued by him but eventually the assessee did not even file any return of income in response the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Due to non-compliance by the assessee during the later stages

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]

exemption claimed by the assessee includes claim of repayment of housing loan of Rs. 1,97,16,393/- on 22.03.2016 which is presumably related to any other property

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]

exemption claimed by the assessee includes claim of repayment of housing loan of Rs. 1,97,16,393/- on 22.03.2016 which is presumably related to any other property