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

45. For that, on the fact & circumstances of the case, the learned (3) Addl/JCIT(A) has erred in Law and on facts and failed to appreciate that no possession was transferred as clearly stated in JDA that possession will only be transferred after sanction of Planned Layout and statutory permission are obtained and further Partition deed between builder and Landowner

PUSHPA KUMARI,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 7/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Pushpa Kumari,…………………..…...…………Appellant Rashtiriya Ganj, Station Road, Phulwari Sharif, Patna-801505, Bihar [Pan:Agmpk8844Q] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…..………………………...Respondent Ward-6(2), Patna Appearances By: Shri Prasoon Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 28, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2024 O R D E R

property possessed by the appellant. The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2015-16, but not declared any capital gains in the financial year 2014-15 because the development work/process was not initiated by the developer. The assessee had not declared capital gains on such agreement as the builder had not acted upon as there

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

45 and 48 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and section 53A of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in holding that the transfer of 55% of the Land in favour of the Developer was a deemed transfer u/s 53A of the Transfer of Property

SRIRAM ENTERPRISES,BHAGALPUR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, PATNA, PATNA

45,19,620/- from house property,\nprofit of ₹12,16,69,526/- from business and ₹1,12,438/- as income\nfrom other sources. There are two partners of the assessee-firm namely,\n1. Shri Shiv Kumar Agarwal and 2. Shri Roshan Kumar Agarwal. The\nreturn was selected for complete scrutiny under Computer Assisted\nScrutiny Selection (in short 'CASS') and statutory

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

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

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

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

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

45,000/- only was deposited in savings Bank account 12. For that the provisions of section 69A do not apply in the appellant's case as she furnished her return on account of income from house property

VIJAYA SINGH,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1), PATNA, PATNA, BIHAR

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

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 519/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Vijaya Singh,…………………………...….………Appellant M-55/22A, S.K. Nagar, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Asups6086N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………......Respondent Ward-6(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Jay Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-800001, Bihar

house property’ and the assessee has also declared the agricultural income of Rs.39,45,200/- during the FY under consideration. As the assessee failed to establish the agriculture income as claimed by her in the return of income, therefore, it was concluded that the agricultural income shown by the assessee is nothing but unexplained money. The amount of Rs.39,45

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

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

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

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

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

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, 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

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

45 to 249 09 Reply of assessee- ANN-5 250 to 256 10 Reply of Notice u/s 142(1)- ANN-6 257 11 Reply of notice u/s 142(1)- ANN-7 258 to 284 12 Reply of notice u/s 142(1) -ANN-8 285 to 319 13 Reply of assessee-ANN-9 321 to 351 14 Order sheet details

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

45 to 249 09 Reply of assessee- ANN-5 250 to 256 10 Reply of Notice u/s 142(1)- ANN-6 257 11 Reply of notice u/s 142(1)- ANN-7 258 to 284 12 Reply of notice u/s 142(1) -ANN-8 285 to 319 13 Reply of assessee-ANN-9 321 to 351 14 Order sheet details

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

45 to 249 09 Reply of assessee- ANN-5 250 to 256 10 Reply of Notice u/s 142(1)- ANN-6 257 11 Reply of notice u/s 142(1)- ANN-7 258 to 284 12 Reply of notice u/s 142(1) -ANN-8 285 to 319 13 Reply of assessee-ANN-9 321 to 351 14 Order sheet details