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) &

4 he stated that, he does not have knowledge of purchased property, the property is in Jasola but he does not remember address and he does not know whether registry has been done or not. I.T.A. No. 67 & 68/Pat/2021, M/s. Al-Karim Educational Trust 69 & 70/Pat/2021 Nuzhat Nasreen & A.A. Karim Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 5 8. That

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) &

4 he stated that, he does not have knowledge of purchased property, the property is in Jasola but he does not remember address and he does not know whether registry has been done or not. I.T.A. No. 67 & 68/Pat/2021, M/s. Al-Karim Educational Trust 69 & 70/Pat/2021 Nuzhat Nasreen & A.A. Karim Assessment Year: 2013-14 & 2014-15 5 8. That

PRABHAT KUMAR,PATNA vs. PR.CIT-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

house property income. Therefore, ld. Commissioner has not committed any error while exercising the powers under section 263. This appeal is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24.07.2024. (Manish Borad) Vice-President Kolkata, the 24th day of July, 2024 Copies

KAMLESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD- 6 (4), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraι.Τ.Α. No.: 147/Pat/2025

Property Act, 1882, thus the capital Gain as assumed, ascertained and computed/calculated hypothetically by the Ld. A.O. only on the basis of so called development agreement and possibility of fulfilment of terms and conditions thereof has caused miscarriage of justice which cannot be sustainable under the provisions of law. And, in support of the above facts

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; therefore, the provisions of section 54F would be applicable if the assessee I.T.A. No.: 715/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Seema Srivastava. fulfils the other applicable conditions in section 54F. Thereafter, the AO has reproduced the parts of the section 54F which mention the conditions i.e. clause a and b. In concluding para of the order i.e. para

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, MUZAFFARPUR vs. M/S R.P.RAI ESTATE PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur M/S. R.P. Rai Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs 19, Goharua, Patliputra Colony, Patliputra, Patna- 800013. Pan: Aaccr 4972 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit, Dr Respondent By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.06.2020 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

house property. Further, estimated the income of the assessee applying net profit of 8% on the gross contract receipts of Rs. 2,39,81,246/- which works out to be Rs. 19,18,500/-. The ld. AO therefore assessed the income of the assessee to Rs. 2,07,82,680/- is against declared total income

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

House property as per provisions of the joint Land Development agreement. 14. Without prejudice to the above, even if for argument sake, the date of execution and/or registration of the agreement is treated as the date of transfer even then the learned Assessing Officer erred in the manner of computing of the capital gains which is not in the mode

RENU DEVI,PATNA vs. ITO, 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. 672/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Renu Devi,……………………………....….………Appellant D/79, P.C. Colony, Lohia Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna-800020, Bihar [Pan:Algpd4522P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-6(2), Patna Appearances By: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 25, 2025 O R D E R

4 Renu Devi providing a beneficial construction of Section 2(47) and Interpreted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Assessee. (6) For that, on the fact & circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in Law in not allowing the benefit of Section 54 of the Income Tax Act even though

USHASHREE DEVI,BHAGALPUR vs. PR.CIT-1, PATNA

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 42/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ushashree Devi, Sabjee Chowk, Barari, Bhagalpur - 812003 [Pan: Aeppd6663K] ……….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patna – 1, Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Marg, Patna - 800001 ............…..........................…..…..... Respondent

house property, business income from dairy, and from bank & postal interest under section 44AD when maintenance of books of account was not required and the Id. CIT (A) erred in not considering the submissions made by the appellant. 13. For that for other grounds, if any, to be urged at the time of hearing the orders as passed

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

4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee owned a land/plot at Patna, Bihar. The assessee entered into a development agreement for the development of the said land/plot. As per the development agreement, the assessee was entitled to a share out of the developed property. The Assessing Officer treated the said Joint Development Agreement (‘JDA’) as transfer

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

4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee owned a land/plot at Patna, Bihar. The assessee entered into a development agreement for the development of the said land/plot. As per the development agreement, the assessee was entitled to a share out of the developed property. The Assessing Officer treated the said Joint Development Agreement (‘JDA’) as transfer

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

4 pertain to the single issue of addition of capital gain of Rs.64,02,144/- by following the provisions of Section 50C of the Act and the same is adjudicated as under:- ITA No.: 18/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Lalmuni Devi. 5.1. On receipt of information under section 133(6) of the Act in terms of copies of land development

MINTU RANI,PATNA vs. ASSESSEMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

property, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 5. For that the learned NFAC has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the action of the AO in making addition of Rs 72,54,686/- on account of alleged deposits in the bank accounts, which is wrong, illegal and unjustified. 6. For that the learned NFAC

CHHAYA DEVI,MUZAFFARPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 437/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Chhaya Devi,………….…………………….………Appellant New Area Sikandarpur, Muzaffarpur-842001, Bihar [Pan:Aakpd7640M] -Vs.- National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nfac)…………………………………………….....Respondent New Delhi Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

house property, business and other sources and claimed deduction under section 10AA of the I.T. Act. A series of notices under section 142(1) totaling eight in numbers, were issued along with questionnaire which were complied from time to time. The appellant alsosought hearing through video conference which was conducted on 26.08.2021. Certain queries were made during video conferencing, which

M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

House Exhibition Road, Patna PAN/GIR No.AACCM 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, ARs Revenue by : Shri Indrajeet Singh, DR Date of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-1, Patna dated

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

properties and also constructed residential house out of the compensation received. The assessee has also submitted purchase deed. Therefore, assessee is entitled to get exemption under section 54B and 54F of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer simply overlooked the submission of the appellant and add Rs.2,41,50,000/- as capital gain and assessed income ITA No.: 268/PAT/2023

RAJESH SINGH,HAJIPUR vs. ADDL/JCIT, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz)

4. Brief facts of the case are that the assesese is an individual, who filed his return of income on 28.03.2017 showing total income of Rs.2,67,440/- and agriculture income of Rs.27,50,000/-. The assessee derives income from agriculture and house property. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Accordingly, notices under sections

SRI KALIKA NANDAN NIJI KULDEVTA TRUST,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(3), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

house property, Rs.16,727/- as income from other sources (interest and donation received) and net agricultural income of Rs.56,000/- equal to aggregate income of Rs.1,10,530/-, on which no tax was payable as the threshold limit was Rs. 2 lacs. According to the Ld. Sr. Advocate, Shri Rastogi, the Ld. CIT(A) has not correctly appreciated the facts