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

house but the deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act was not allowed. The entire amount of sale consideration of ₹2,41,50,000/- was added as capital gains on transfer of land without allowing any cost of acquisition and the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹2,47,38,940/- u/s 143(3

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]

3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya 7. d. The exemption claimed by the assessee includes claim of repayment of 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

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]

3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya 7. d. The exemption claimed by the assessee includes claim of repayment of 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

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]

3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya 7. d. The exemption claimed by the assessee includes claim of repayment of 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

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]

3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya 7. d. The exemption claimed by the assessee includes claim of repayment of 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

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]

3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya 7. d. The exemption claimed by the assessee includes claim of repayment of 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

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.

Section 250/250(6B) and the Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021 dated 28/12/2021 notified by the CBDT. 2. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has issued a show cause notice u/s 251(2) of the Act dated 17/06/2025 for compliance on 20/06/2025 and thereby denying proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3. For that

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

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 of the Act. As regards the delay in filing the appeal, it was submitted that the assessee was not aware that

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