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 No. B-76, Khesara No. 635/245, Village Jasola, New 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 39 Delhi-l10025 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

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 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 39 Delhi-l10025 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

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 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 39 Delhi-l10025 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

RAVI LOCHAN SINGH,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

housing loan for flat no. 5D, Malayalay. Hence this addition of the AO is confirmed, and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed on this ground. Ground No- 6 regarding disallowance of Rs. 2,98,145/- on account of 50% of interest on loan taken for purchases of property 2W, The Millennium Building. This ground is same nature as ground

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

40 ITR(T) 487 (Mumbai)] held\nas under:-\n\"31. The contention of the Id. D.R. that assessee has accepted Rs. 13.75 crores from\nGodrej Properties Ltd. pursuant to the Development Agreement, therefore, it amounts\nto transfer of the land to Godrej Properties Ltd. does not find any merit. There was no\ntransfer of land as per amended provisions

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

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

House-Con Construction & Developer during the FY 2012-13 relevant to the AY 2013-14. On perusal of the land development agreement entered into by the assessee on 14/08/2012, it was noted that the assessee and the developer have agreed to the development agreement where full share of 49% of the total land area of 4355.20 Sq.ft owned

AJAY KUMAR,PATNA vs. PR. CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

house property and income from other source, namely interest etc. As observed above, the ld. Assessing Officer has examined all these details and thereafter finalized the assessment. 4. The ld. Pr. Commissioner on perusal of the assessment record formed an opinion that assessment order is suffering from an apparent error and, therefore, it has caused a prejudice to the interest

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]

Section 68 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) allowing

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]

Section 68 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) allowing

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]

Section 68 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) allowing

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]

Section 68 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) allowing

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]

Section 68 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) allowing

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. SONAMOTI AGROTECH PVT LTD, PATNA

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Housing of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of E.N. Gopakumar –vs.- CIT reported in 390 ITR 131. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee while impugned the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this fold submitted that the assessee is not disputing about

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. SH. SURESH , PATNA

House and has erred in allowing deduction u/s 54 to the LTCG arising to the assessee. (iii) Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the claim of the assessee regarding the cost of construction of the Rupam Tower building. He also erred in accepting the actual period of construction of the building.” 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

40 of 56 I.T.A. Nos. 322-329/Pat/2024, Nalanda Engicon P. Ltd., AY: 2014-15 to 2021-22 33. Though the assessee has referred and relied upon plethora of decisions, we would like to take note of two decisions which are squarely applicable on the facts of the instant case. The first one is the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

40 of 56 I.T.A. Nos. 322-329/Pat/2024, Nalanda Engicon P. Ltd., AY: 2014-15 to 2021-22 33. Though the assessee has referred and relied upon plethora of decisions, we would like to take note of two decisions which are squarely applicable on the facts of the instant case. The first one is the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional

NALANDA ENGICON PVT. LTD, PATNA,PATNA vs. PR. CIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

40 of 56 I.T.A. Nos. 322-329/Pat/2024, Nalanda Engicon P. Ltd., AY: 2014-15 to 2021-22 33. Though the assessee has referred and relied upon plethora of decisions, we would like to take note of two decisions which are squarely applicable on the facts of the instant case. The first one is the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional