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

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

Section 54F" ], "issues": "Whether the Joint Development Agreement constituted a 'transfer' of property leading to capital gains, and whether a Rs. 5,00,000 addition for demolition of house

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

54F of the Income Tax Act has\nbeen decided by the Tribunal after considering the relevant fact that the assessing\nofficer had also charged capital gain in the year 1999- 2000 and hence, there would\nnot be any scope to hold that the transfer of land had taken place in 1991 as claimed\nby the Department. The nature of development

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

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

54F of the Income Tax Act to the Appellant as the entire deemed consideration was being simultaneously applied for acquisition of 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

SUNIL KUMAR SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

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

Bench: the sale of immovable properties on which long term capital gain was derived.

property as per Rol amounting to Rs. 14.42 lakhs vis-a-vis Rs. 12,36,730/- without appreciating the fact that the claim of Rs.12.36 lakhs as per circle rate of F.Y.2001-02 issued by Govt. of Bihar. 10. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has denying deduction u/s 54F and 54B amounting to Rs.2,89,07,000/- (Rs.1.58 crore

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

54F is available in the order under section 263 which is not disputed by the assessee before ITAT." 14 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sriram Enterprises 8.7. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar reported in 335 ITR 83 has held that where it was discernible from record that

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

property as on 01/04/2001. The entire sale ITA No.: 117/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kripa Shanker. consideration had been invested in the construction of house and therefore, no capital gains was chargeable as per the provisions of section 54F

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

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

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

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

54F on the gain of transfer of lands as arose to the assesse. (ii) Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding Rupam Tower as Residential 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