AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

20, the contents of which for the sake of ready reference are reproduced as under: “As per the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961, any Capital Gain arising out of transfer of Long Term Capital Assets being an equity share in a company or a unit of an equity oriented fund, on which STT is paid, is exempt from taxation

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

20, the contents of which for the sake of ready reference are reproduced as under: “As per the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961, any Capital Gain arising out of transfer of Long Term Capital Assets being an equity share in a company or a unit of an equity oriented fund, on which STT is paid, is exempt from taxation

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

20, the contents of which for the sake of ready reference are reproduced as under: “As per the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961, any Capital Gain arising out of transfer of Long Term Capital Assets being an equity share in a company or a unit of an equity oriented fund, on which STT is paid, is exempt from taxation

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

20. Ld. AO has failed to consider that there will be no capital gain in the hands of the appellant on the date of entering upon the Development Agreement as neither consideration nor ownership passed from one to another. 21. Ld. AO failed to consider that the liability of capital gain in case of Development Agreement will arise

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]

20. Facts in brief are that the return was filed on 31.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 4,24,41,600/- which was revised by the assessee declaring total income of Rs. 2,49,73,811/-. The said revision was done in order to reduce the claim u/s 54EC and 54F against the declared long term capital gain on certain

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]

20. Facts in brief are that the return was filed on 31.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 4,24,41,600/- which was revised by the assessee declaring total income of Rs. 2,49,73,811/-. The said revision was done in order to reduce the claim u/s 54EC and 54F against the declared long term capital gain on certain

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]

20. Facts in brief are that the return was filed on 31.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 4,24,41,600/- which was revised by the assessee declaring total income of Rs. 2,49,73,811/-. The said revision was done in order to reduce the claim u/s 54EC and 54F against the declared long term capital gain on certain

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]

20. Facts in brief are that the return was filed on 31.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 4,24,41,600/- which was revised by the assessee declaring total income of Rs. 2,49,73,811/-. The said revision was done in order to reduce the claim u/s 54EC and 54F against the declared long term capital gain on certain

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]

20. Facts in brief are that the return was filed on 31.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 4,24,41,600/- which was revised by the assessee declaring total income of Rs. 2,49,73,811/-. The said revision was done in order to reduce the claim u/s 54EC and 54F against the declared long term capital gain on certain

SANGEETA GOEL,PATNA vs. CCIT, NFAC, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 211/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sangeeta Goel Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax/Nfac 506, Santosha Complex Vs Fraser Road Bander Bagicha Patna - 800001 [Pan: Acbpg0887A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 30/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. A. That The Initiation Of Proceeding U/S 147 R.W.S 148 Of The It Act, 1961 Based On Alleged Information Of Bogus Trade Amounting To Rs. 35,09,213/- In The Shares & Securities Of M/S Ayaan Commercial Pvt Ltd Being Bereft Of Fact & Assessee Having Not Carried On Any Such Transaction, The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The It Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law. B. That The Ld. A.O. Having Rejected The Objection Of The Assessee Although These Facts Are Brought On Record His Action In Doing So Is Bad In Law. C. That The Reopening U/S 147 Was Based On Mere Suspicion & Surmises, The Proceeding U/S 147 R.W.S. 148 Of The It Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law.

10(38) of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) taking a legal ground challenging the initiation of proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act but failed to succeed as ld. CIT(A) was of the view that the assessee had claimed long term capital gain in her return of income and Assessing Officer had information

ITO, WARD-4(1), PATNA vs. JAGDISH RAY, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of revenue-ITA No

10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as acquired landed property was agriculture land besides application of Section 96 of the RFCTLAAR Act, 2013 as referred in the said Circular No.36. 3. For that the Second ground of appeal is contrary in itself, the Appellant has taken the ground on the basis of Board's Letter bearing F.No. 279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ

MANOJ KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 4(4), PATNA, PATNA

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

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

20,560/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 05.07.2017 was issued to the assessee and subsequently, other statutory notices were issued to the assessee and assessee furnished reply the AO observed that the assessee engaged in agricultural activities has purchased a new asset on 26.03.2016 for Rs. 1 crore and claimed

PANCHAM PAL,PATNA vs. I.T.O, WARD- 6 (4), PATNA

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

10. For that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering the fact that the reasons recorded by Assessing Officer has been erroneous and the assessment order passed is illegal, void ab initio and is fit to be quashed/ annulled. 11. For that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering

SANJU SINHA,PATNA vs. ITO WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vp & Dr. Manish Borad, Am Sanju Sinha, Ito, Ward 6(1) Khajpura, B. V College, Patna-800 001 Khajpura, Patna-800014, Vs. Bihar Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Apkps0784A Assessee By : Shri Prasoon Kr., Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2024

section 2(47) of the IT Act and had either earned income or income were accrued in the assessment year in question under capital gain. Sanju Sinha; A.Y. 2015-16 6. For that the assessing office neither recorded valid reason nor the JCIT and Commissioner accorded valid sanction as prescribed undersection 151 of the Act, as such, whole

ZAIMUR RAHMAN,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

10. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer, without giving any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity, has erred in holding that the opening balance of Proprietor's Capital (being the closing balance as on 31/03/2015) to the tune of Rs.3,45,16,118 is unexplained cash credit under section 68 read

ARUN KUMAR MISHRA,BUXAR vs. PR.CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Shri Kant Mishra Income Tax Officer Maha Laxmi Steel Ward-1(5) Vs. Station Road, Buxar-802101 Buxar, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0714N Brij Kumar Mishra Plot No. 36, Gajadhar Ganj, Ram Ito, Ward-1(5) Bagh, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. 802101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Afipm0712L Ajeet Kumar Mishra Ito, Ward-1(5) Buxar, Bihar, 802101 Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0713M Arun Kumar Mishra Opp. Mahatma Gandhi Magar, Ito, Ward-1(5) Bazar Samity, Rambagh, Buxar, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. Buxar, Bihar, 802101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0716Q Assessee By : Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajat Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.10.2025

20 & 21/PAT/2021 term capital gain of ₹36,60,028/- from sale of equity shares. The learned PCIT further noted that no documents or relevant papers were found /placed in the assessment records in respect of sale and purchase of the said shares. The learned PCIT noted that during the assessment proceedings, the learned AO has not called for the supporting

SHRI KANT MISHRA,BUXAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), BUXAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Shri Kant Mishra Income Tax Officer Maha Laxmi Steel Ward-1(5) Vs. Station Road, Buxar-802101 Buxar, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0714N Brij Kumar Mishra Plot No. 36, Gajadhar Ganj, Ram Ito, Ward-1(5) Bagh, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. 802101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Afipm0712L Ajeet Kumar Mishra Ito, Ward-1(5) Buxar, Bihar, 802101 Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0713M Arun Kumar Mishra Opp. Mahatma Gandhi Magar, Ito, Ward-1(5) Bazar Samity, Rambagh, Buxar, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. Buxar, Bihar, 802101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0716Q Assessee By : Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajat Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.10.2025

20 & 21/PAT/2021 term capital gain of ₹36,60,028/- from sale of equity shares. The learned PCIT further noted that no documents or relevant papers were found /placed in the assessment records in respect of sale and purchase of the said shares. The learned PCIT noted that during the assessment proceedings, the learned AO has not called for the supporting

BRIJ KUMAR MISHRA,BUXAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), BUXAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Shri Kant Mishra Income Tax Officer Maha Laxmi Steel Ward-1(5) Vs. Station Road, Buxar-802101 Buxar, Bihar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0714N Brij Kumar Mishra Plot No. 36, Gajadhar Ganj, Ram Ito, Ward-1(5) Bagh, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. 802101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Afipm0712L Ajeet Kumar Mishra Ito, Ward-1(5) Buxar, Bihar, 802101 Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0713M Arun Kumar Mishra Opp. Mahatma Gandhi Magar, Ito, Ward-1(5) Bazar Samity, Rambagh, Buxar, Buxar, Buxar, Bihar Vs. Buxar, Bihar, 802101 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afipm0716Q Assessee By : Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajat Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.10.2025

20 & 21/PAT/2021 term capital gain of ₹36,60,028/- from sale of equity shares. The learned PCIT further noted that no documents or relevant papers were found /placed in the assessment records in respect of sale and purchase of the said shares. The learned PCIT noted that during the assessment proceedings, the learned AO has not called for the supporting