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

section 10(38) on long-term capital gain on sale of shares on basis of statement of entry operators recorded on various dates in some other proceedings not concerned with assessee and no opportunity to cross-examine so-called entry providers was given to assessee thereby violating principles of natural justice, Tribunal was justified in deleting addition made by Assessing

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

section 10(38) on long-term capital gain on sale of shares on basis of statement of entry operators recorded on various dates in some other proceedings not concerned with assessee and no opportunity to cross-examine so-called entry providers was given to assessee thereby violating principles of natural justice, Tribunal was justified in deleting addition made by Assessing

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

section 10(38) on long-term capital gain on sale of shares on basis of statement of entry operators recorded on various dates in some other proceedings not concerned with assessee and no opportunity to cross-examine so-called entry providers was given to assessee thereby violating principles of natural justice, Tribunal was justified in deleting addition made by Assessing

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]

10,00,000/-from Rohit Engicon Pvt. Ltd.. However no confirmations were filed. Thereafter the AO again requested and called upon the assessee to submit the same but remained non complied. Finally the AO added the same to the income of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not submitted any details. 21. In the appellate proceedings

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]

10,00,000/-from Rohit Engicon Pvt. Ltd.. However no confirmations were filed. Thereafter the AO again requested and called upon the assessee to submit the same but remained non complied. Finally the AO added the same to the income of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not submitted any details. 21. In the appellate proceedings

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]

10,00,000/-from Rohit Engicon Pvt. Ltd.. However no confirmations were filed. Thereafter the AO again requested and called upon the assessee to submit the same but remained non complied. Finally the AO added the same to the income of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not submitted any details. 21. In the appellate proceedings

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]

10,00,000/-from Rohit Engicon Pvt. Ltd.. However no confirmations were filed. Thereafter the AO again requested and called upon the assessee to submit the same but remained non complied. Finally the AO added the same to the income of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not submitted any details. 21. In the appellate proceedings

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]

10,00,000/-from Rohit Engicon Pvt. Ltd.. However no confirmations were filed. Thereafter the AO again requested and called upon the assessee to submit the same but remained non complied. Finally the AO added the same to the income of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not submitted any details. 21. In the appellate proceedings

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

BAIJU ROY,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-4(2), PATNA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

10(37) quoting circular No.36/2016 in his written submission. Further, a show-cause I etter dated 29.11.2018 was issued to the assessee for compliance on or before 7.12.2018 as to why not Rs. 1,25,05,763/-received as compensation for acquisition of land be treated as Capital Gain u/s 45(5) of the I.T.Act,1961 on account

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

KAMLESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. ITO WARD- 6 (4), PATNA

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

Capital Gain as assumed, ascertained\nand computed hypothetically by the Ld. A.O. could not be brought to tax\nU/Sec. 45 r.w.s. 48 of the Income - tax Act, 1961.\n11. It is further submitted that all these detailed submissions were made\nbefore the learned CIT(A), however, the learned CIT(A) has failed to\nappreciate the facts of the case

ALOK KUMAR,ARRAH vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), ARRAH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

10, 2024 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), 1 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Alok Kumar National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 13th September, 2022 passed for A.Y. 2012-13. 2. In response to the notice

KIRAN JAISWAL,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 4(5), PATNA

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

capital gain merely on the ground that the appellant has sold land for Rs.31,25,000 the estimated cost of acquisition whereof would be Rs.2,46,000 notwithstanding the fact that the whole of the sale proceeds were invested in purchase of land and construction of residential house there on and that the same were specifically exempt under Section

XAVIERS CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PATNA vs. ITO WARD- 2 (2), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 349/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Xaviers Construction Pvt. Limited,....……Appellant House No. 239, Lodipur, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Aaacx0342D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….....Respondent Ward-2(2), Patna Appearances By: Shri Anjan Biswas, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: February 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 21, 2025 O R D E R

section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act were issued and served upon the assessee. During the scrutiny proceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer has observed that the appellant has earned income on account of sale of three flats. The ld. Assessing Officer further observed that during the financial year 2014-15, the assesee had recognized income

LAVANYA ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ITW WARD 2 (1) PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 342/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Lavanya Estates Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer, Kasim Colonydargah Road Ward 2(1), Mahendru, Sultanganj, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dakbanglow, Patna-800 001 Patna, Bihar-800 006 [Pan : Aadcl0333R] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

25,79,791/- for Unsecured loans and ₹84,03,000/- for Sundry Creditors, aggregating to ₹1,9,82,781/- in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 25th November, 2019 without converting the limited scrutiny into complete scrutiny with the approval of the competent authority during the assessment proceedings and the assessment was framed as such

ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA vs. M/S SUN COMTECH PVT LTD, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

25:50 PM BUY 10 115.45 5000 5772500.00 6 NICKEL FUTURES 16/03/201101:28:12 PM BUY 12 115.45 5000 6927000.00 9 NICKEL FUTURES 16/03/2011 01:28:23 PM BUY 12 115.45 5000 6927000.00 7 ZINC FUTURES 21/03/2011 03:59:29 PM BUY 12 115.45 5000 6927000.00 4 ZINC FUTURES 21/03/201103:59:40 PM BUY 12 115.45 5000 6927000.00 2 ZINC

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

25,000 in State Bank of India during the Financial Year 2014-15 corresponding to Assessment Year 2015-16 is unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act and assessed the same under the Act. 10. For that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as well as the ld. assessing officer, without giving any opportunity