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

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

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\nstatistical purposes

Property Act, 1882,\nthus the capital Gain as assumed, ascertained and computed/calculated\nhypothetically by the Ld. A.O. only on the basis of so called development\nagreement and possibility of fulfilment of terms and conditions thereof has\ncaused miscarriage of justice which cannot be sustainable under the\nprovisions of law.\nAnd, in support of the above facts

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

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

Sections 2(47)(v) and (vi) of the Act. Further, M/s. Godrej Properties Ltd., did not\nhave exclusive possession of the land but had only permitted user/ license to the land\nfrom the Respondent. The impugned order further records the fact that no development\nactivities was carried on the land owned by the Assessee and in view of the market

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

4,24,260/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s\n147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 18.12.2018, for\nthe reason that the income of the assessee to the tune of\n1,33,85,300/- from Long-Term Capital Gain, arising from and with\nrespect to Land Development Agreement (LDA) dated

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

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