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]

property during relevant assessment year and capital gain accrued amounting to Rs. 7,01,29,667/- was shown during the year and deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 4,45,12,849/- was claimed in respect of acquisition of new house as a residential flat on 04.02.2016 beside deduction of Rs. 50,00,000/-u/s54EC of the Act for making investment

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]

property during relevant assessment year and capital gain accrued amounting to Rs. 7,01,29,667/- was shown during the year and deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 4,45,12,849/- was claimed in respect of acquisition of new house as a residential flat on 04.02.2016 beside deduction of Rs. 50,00,000/-u/s54EC of the Act for making investment

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]

property during relevant assessment year and capital gain accrued amounting to Rs. 7,01,29,667/- was shown during the year and deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 4,45,12,849/- was claimed in respect of acquisition of new house as a residential flat on 04.02.2016 beside deduction of Rs. 50,00,000/-u/s54EC of the Act for making investment

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Long Term Capital Gain for tax purpose 1,33,85,300/-\nThe Id. CIT (A) in the appellate proceedings dismissed the appeal of\nthe assessee by passing a very cryptic order by observing that the\nLong-Term Capital Gain was correctly computed by the Id. AO and\nbrought to tax. The Id. CIT (A) relied on the decision of Chaturbhuj

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

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

long-term capital gains. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.", "held": "The Tribunal held that no transfer of property had taken place as per the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act. The builder was allowed to construct, but there was no other performance or relinquishment of rights. The LDA was not registered, and possession

SHARDINDU PRASAD SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

long term capital gains and consequently raising tax demand of 39,63,956/- inclusive of interest U/s. 234B & 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. b. The other grounds of appeal here under are urged without prejudice to one another: 1. On the facts & circumstances of the case, the order of the learned Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

house property, capital gain/loss on sale of property, sales turnover/receipt and deduction/exemption from capital gains. The notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and subsequently notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was also issued but there was no compliance by the assessee. The assessee had shown receipt of Rs. 2,87,77,235/- from sale of immovable

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

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

Long Term Capital Gains. Capital Gains arising on sale of\nagriculture land has wrongly been taxed.\n3.2 For that the assessee had purchased agricultural land in year 1987 not forming\nthe part of definition of capital assets. The assessee sold the same after\nassignment. It is pertinent to mention here that in order to avoid complication in\nfuture with regard

VIBHUTI BHUSHAN SINHA,DWARKA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), PATNA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.02/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Vibhuti Bhushan Sinha………………………….....…...……………....Appellant C-601, Shivam Apartment, Virmeshwar Nagar, Dwarka, Gujrat-361335. [Pan: Aigps7118D] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent I.T.A. No.03/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Sonam Raj…………..………………………….....…...……………....Appellant W/O Shri Deepak Verma, 2Nd Floor, House No.101, Pocket-52, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi – 110019. [Pan: Dfsps6397E] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sushil Kr. Mishra, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By Two Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.04.2021 & 01.03.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To

long term capital gain may please be cancelled and the demanded tax may also be waived on cancellation. 8. On the fact & circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the clauses of the JDA and its term & condition for the exchange of transaction. According to the learned Assessing Officer, the assessee will get from a multi

SONAM RAJ,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), PATNA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.02/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2015-16 Vibhuti Bhushan Sinha………………………….....…...……………....Appellant C-601, Shivam Apartment, Virmeshwar Nagar, Dwarka, Gujrat-361335. [Pan: Aigps7118D] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent I.T.A. No.03/Pat/2022 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Sonam Raj…………..………………………….....…...……………....Appellant W/O Shri Deepak Verma, 2Nd Floor, House No.101, Pocket-52, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi – 110019. [Pan: Dfsps6397E] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Patna…..….................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sushil Kr. Mishra, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By Two Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.04.2021 & 01.03.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To

long term capital gain may please be cancelled and the demanded tax may also be waived on cancellation. 8. On the fact & circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the clauses of the JDA and its term & condition for the exchange of transaction. According to the learned Assessing Officer, the assessee will get from a multi

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

long-term capital gains was worked out at ₹27,50,000/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who, vide the impugned order, dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to respond to the notices issued for hearing. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed

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

House, Anandpuri, West Boring Canal Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [PAN:AMMPS7739J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….....Respondent Ward-6(5), Patna, Lok Nayak Jay Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chauraha, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances by: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Ashwani Kumar Singal, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing

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

House, Anandpuri, West Boring Canal Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [PAN:AMMPS7739J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….....Respondent Ward-6(5), Patna, Lok Nayak Jay Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chauraha, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances by: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Ashwani Kumar Singal, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue Date of concluding the hearing

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

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

Appeal is allowed\nfor statistical purposes

long term capital\ngain and taxing the same as capital gain, notwithstanding the fact that the\nappellant has given sufficient documentary evidences before the Id assessing\nofficer to substantiate the claim of cost of improvement.\n10. For that the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the Id.\nassessing officer, without given sufficient opportunity, has erred in estimating

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

long term 5 capital loss so interest u/s 234B should not be levied” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed any return of income for the year under consideration despite entering into and registering a Land Development Agreement with House-Con Consultant & Developer during the FY 2012-13 relevant

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.

house was started before the sale of immovable properties on which long term capital gain was derived. 7. For that

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]

long term capital gain of Rs. 1,87,944/- which was claimed as 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