ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. AHMAD ASHFAQUE KARIM, 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 at Patna of Md. A.A. Karim. The income tax department not even saw those diaries which were seized by police and also without any explanation of the appellant without providing the copies of diaries for explanation. Therefore, failure of Income Tax Department for providing those diaries the basis of which the additions of undisclosed income by giving certain absolute

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 at Patna of Md. A.A. Karim. The income tax department not even saw those diaries which were seized by police and also without any explanation of the appellant without providing the copies of diaries for explanation. Therefore, failure of Income Tax Department for providing those diaries the basis of which the additions of undisclosed income by giving certain absolute

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 at Patna of Md. A.A. Karim. The income tax department not even saw those diaries which were seized by police and also without any explanation of the appellant without providing the copies of diaries for explanation. Therefore, failure of Income Tax Department for providing those diaries the basis of which the additions of undisclosed income by giving certain absolute

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

Appeal is allowed\nfor statistical purposes

house property shown in ITR and added back Rs.8,85,666\n(Rs.2,03,27,693 less Rs.1,94,42,027) to the total income of the appellant,\nnotwithstanding the fact that the difference is reconcilable.\n12. For that the Id. assessing officer has erred in initiating penalty proceeding\nunder Section

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

27. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, we, taking strength of the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Income-tax Officer v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (supra), find that the ld. Pr. CIT has merely referred to the seized material but has not made any further enquiry about the correctness

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL , PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

27. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, we, taking strength of the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Income-tax Officer v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (supra), find that the ld. Pr. CIT has merely referred to the seized material but has not made any further enquiry about the correctness

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

27. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, we, taking strength of the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Income-tax Officer v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (supra), find that the ld. Pr. CIT has merely referred to the seized material but has not made any further enquiry about the correctness

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

27. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, we, taking strength of the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Income-tax Officer v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (supra), find that the ld. Pr. CIT has merely referred to the seized material but has not made any further enquiry about the correctness

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

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

27. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, we, taking strength of the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Income-tax Officer v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (supra), find that the ld. Pr. CIT has merely referred to the seized material but has not made any further enquiry about the correctness

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

house well within the stipulated time before 31.07.2014 and therefore no capital gain is chargeable as per the provision of section 54 F of the I.T. Act, 1961. 7. For that the Learned A.O. has taken the estimated cost of acquisition of the land at Rs.10,000 and the same has been deducted from the sale consideration without indexation, which

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

27-November-2025 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2018-19 dated 10.06.2025. 2. The assessee

SRIRAM ENTERPRISES,PATNA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 76/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sriram Enterprises,………………………..........Appellant C/O. Nirmal & Associates, Nepali Kothi, Opposite Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001 [Pan:Aarfs8853J] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna,…………………………………..……………..Respondent, Bihar-800001 Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 5Th March, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 8Th, 2024 O R D E R

Housing Projects Limited (2012) 343 ITR 329, we need to inquire the facts of the case. Firstly, we examine whether ld. PCIT has rightly assumed jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. Now for assuming jurisdiction ld. PCIT has to satisfy himself whether the order of ld. Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

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

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

property sold was agricultural land and any\ngains on the same was exempt under provision of section 10(37) of the L. T. Act,\n1961. Before the department the assessee duly filed copy of impugned sale deed.\nWithout prejudice to above, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in allowing\ncost of improvement at the rate of Rs. 7500/- per katha

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]

housing loan of Rs. 1,97,16,393/- on 22.03.2016 which is presumably related to any other property as the cost of properly acquired from M/s Bestech (erroneously referred to as Ms Unitech in the show cause notice) itself is merely Rs. 1,11,53, 500/- e. Notwithstanding above, the assessee has claimed total exemption u/s 54F for an amount

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]

housing loan of Rs. 1,97,16,393/- on 22.03.2016 which is presumably related to any other property as the cost of properly acquired from M/s Bestech (erroneously referred to as Ms Unitech in the show cause notice) itself is merely Rs. 1,11,53, 500/- e. Notwithstanding above, the assessee has claimed total exemption u/s 54F for an amount

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]

housing loan of Rs. 1,97,16,393/- on 22.03.2016 which is presumably related to any other property as the cost of properly acquired from M/s Bestech (erroneously referred to as Ms Unitech in the show cause notice) itself is merely Rs. 1,11,53, 500/- e. Notwithstanding above, the assessee has claimed total exemption u/s 54F for an amount

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]

housing loan of Rs. 1,97,16,393/- on 22.03.2016 which is presumably related to any other property as the cost of properly acquired from M/s Bestech (erroneously referred to as Ms Unitech in the show cause notice) itself is merely Rs. 1,11,53, 500/- e. Notwithstanding above, the assessee has claimed total exemption u/s 54F for an amount

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]

housing loan of Rs. 1,97,16,393/- on 22.03.2016 which is presumably related to any other property as the cost of properly acquired from M/s Bestech (erroneously referred to as Ms Unitech in the show cause notice) itself is merely Rs. 1,11,53, 500/- e. Notwithstanding above, the assessee has claimed total exemption u/s 54F for an amount